Steve Holden wrote: > Christian Tismer wrote: >> Just to add a word that I forgot: >> >> Adhering to the subject line, the intent is to track modifications >> of a dict. >> By definition, modification of a member of a dict without replacing >> the value is not considered a dict change. >> > Well, I agree. But I suppose much depends on exactly what the OP meant > by "... add a new element or alter an existing one". The post did follow > that with "(the values in the dict are mutable)", which is presumably > why garabik-2500 proposed catching __getitem__ as well as __setitem__.
Yes, I understood this after reading more. Probably easier to solve if the problem is spelled more specifically. > I merely wanted to point out (not to you!) that there was no effective > way to capture a change to a mutable item without, as you say, modifying > the element classes. You are completely right. This is asking for too much, unless one is prepared to heavily modify the interpreter for debugging purposes, which actually might be a way to solve the specific problem, once. cheers - chris -- Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tismerysoft GmbH : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9A : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/ 14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ work +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 30 80 90 57 05 PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04 whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list