Andrew Koenig wrote:
> To my way of thinking, callable, iterable, and hashable are the same kind of
> concept,
But you've just pointed out that they're *not*
the same kind of concept, no matter how much
you might wish that there were.
The only way to make hashability testable at
less cost than a
On 7/22/06, Andrew Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This example illustrates an important point: Some object properties don't
> correspond directly to the presence of a particular attribute, and can't
> easily be made to do so.
>
> In other words:
>
> Is it callable? No problem, just c
> > That would be at odds with the approach taken with
> > list.__hash__ which has to be called in order to find-out it is not
> > hashable.
> That feature of __hash__ is just an unfortunate necessity.
> It arises because hashability is sometimes a "deep"
> property (i.e. it depends on the hashabi
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> That would be at odds with the approach taken with
> list.__hash__ which has to be called in order to find-out it is not
> hashable.
That feature of __hash__ is just an unfortunate necessity.
It arises because hashability is sometimes a "deep"
property (i.e. it depends
