alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 1:42 am, Emanuele D'Arrigo man...@gmail.com wrote:
I just had a bit of a shiver for something I'm doing often in my code
but that might be based on a wrong assumption on my part. Take the
following code:
pattern = aPattern
compiledPatterns
pattern it will return the exact same
object rather than a second, identical, object. In interactive tests
via python shell this seems to be the case but... can I rely on it -
always- being the case? Or is it one of those implementation-specific
issues?
I can't tell - I'm not willing to write
but... can I rely on it -
always- being the case? Or is it one of those implementation-specific
issues?
And what about any other function or class/method? Is there a way to
discriminate between methods and functions that when invoked twice
with the same arguments will return the same object and those
, identical, object. In interactive tests
via python shell this seems to be the case but... can I rely on it -
always- being the case?
If the answer is no, am I right to state the in the case portrayed
above the only way to be safe is to use the following code instead?
for item in compiledPatterns
than a second, identical, object. In interactive tests
via python shell this seems to be the case but... can I rely on it -
always- being the case? Or is it one of those implementation-specific
issues?
The re module has a cache of patterns, so if the pattern is already
known then it'll return
Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
[snip]
If the answer is no, am I right to state the in the case portrayed
above the only way to be safe is to use the following code instead?
for item in compiledPatterns:
if(item.pattern == pattern):
print(The compiled pattern is stored.)
break
, identical, object. In interactive tests
via python shell this seems to be the case but... can I rely on it -
always- being the case? Or is it one of those implementation-specific
issues?
And what about any other function or class/method? Is there a way to
discriminate between methods and functions
pattern it will return the exact same
object rather than a second, identical, object. In interactive tests
via python shell this seems to be the case but... can I rely on it -
always- being the case? Or is it one of those implementation-specific
issues?
As MRAB indicated, this only works because
Thank you everybody for the informative replies.
I'll have to comb my code for all the instances of item in sequence
statement because I suspect some of them are as unsafe as my first
example. Oh well. One more lesson learned.
Thank you again.
Manu
--
Emanuele D'Arrigo man...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you everybody for the informative replies.
I'll have to comb my code for all the instances of item in sequence
statement because I suspect some of them are as unsafe as my first
example. Oh well. One more lesson learned.
You may have far fewer
On Mar 20, 1:42 am, Emanuele D'Arrigo man...@gmail.com wrote:
I just had a bit of a shiver for something I'm doing often in my code
but that might be based on a wrong assumption on my part. Take the
following code:
pattern = aPattern
compiledPatterns = [ ]
11 matches
Mail list logo
