On 12/29/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If "makes no sense" means "would not make a difference", then you
> are wrong. Objects in a set are not necessarily unmodifiable;
> they just have to be hashable.
>
Oh, you are right. I thought so much about dropping default hash=id,
or mo
Noam Raphael wrote:
> Perhaps it bothers the programmer with something that shouldn't bother
> him. I mean that I might do help(set.copy), and then think, "Oh, it
> returns a shallow copy. Wait a minute - 'shallow' means that I get a
> new object, which references the same objects as the old one. P
On 12/29/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Noam Raphael wrote:
> > is currently "Return a shallow copy of a set."
> >
> > Perhaps "shallow" should be removed, since set members are supposed to
> > be immutable so there's no point in a deep copy?
>
> That still doesn't make copy ret
Noam Raphael wrote:
> is currently "Return a shallow copy of a set."
>
> Perhaps "shallow" should be removed, since set members are supposed to
> be immutable so there's no point in a deep copy?
That still doesn't make copy return a deep copy, right? "shallow copy"
is more precise than "copy", an
is currently "Return a shallow copy of a set."
Perhaps "shallow" should be removed, since set members are supposed to
be immutable so there's no point in a deep copy?
Noam
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/
