Re: More than you ever wanted to know about objects [was: Is everything a refrence or isn't it]

2006-01-22 Thread rurpy
Steve Holden wrote: [...snipped a long and very helpful post addressing some questions I had regarding the nature of an object's value in python...] Sorry for the belated reply Steve (I had some access problems) but did want to let you know I found that post very informative, and wanted to thank

Re: More than you ever wanted to know about objects [was: Is everything a refrence or isn't it]

2006-01-16 Thread Boris Borcic
Tim Peters a écrit : > [Alex Martelli] > ... >>> In mathematics, 1 is not "the same" as 1.0 -- there exists a natural >>> morphism of integers into reals that _maps_ 1 to 1.0, but they're still >>> NOT "the same" thing. And similarly for the real-vs-complex case. - but does there exists any sense

Re: More than you ever wanted to know about objects [was: Is everything a refrence or isn't it]

2006-01-15 Thread Tim Peters
[Alex Martelli] ... >> In mathematics, 1 is not "the same" as 1.0 -- there exists a natural >> morphism of integers into reals that _maps_ 1 to 1.0, but they're still >> NOT "the same" thing. And similarly for the real-vs-complex case. [Xavier Morel] > I disagree here, 1 and 1.0 are the same math

Re: More than you ever wanted to know about objects [was: Is everything a refrence or isn't it]

2006-01-15 Thread Xavier Morel
Alex Martelli wrote: > Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >>> 3. If two objects are equal with "==", does that >>> mean their values are the same? >> Almost universally, yes, although if you know enough about how the >> interpreter works "under the hood" you can define the response

Re: More than you ever wanted to know about objects [was: Is everything a refrence or isn't it]

2006-01-14 Thread Steve Holden
Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:08:43 +, Steve Holden wrote: > > >>I just wish Mike Meyer and Steven D'Aprano were close enough that you >>could bang their heads together. In the same playground, perhaps? :-) > > > Well, after such a deeply-reasoned, well-explained refutati

Re: More than you ever wanted to know about objects [was: Is everything a refrence or isn't it]

2006-01-14 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:08:43 +, Steve Holden wrote: > I just wish Mike Meyer and Steven D'Aprano were close enough that you > could bang their heads together. In the same playground, perhaps? :-) Well, after such a deeply-reasoned, well-explained refutation of my position, what can I do but

Re: More than you ever wanted to know about objects [was: Is everything a refrence or isn't it]

2006-01-14 Thread Steve Holden
Alex Martelli wrote: > Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... > >>>3. If two objects are equal with "==", does that >>> mean their values are the same? >> >>Almost universally, yes, although if you know enough about how the >>interpreter works "under the hood" you can define the respon

Re: More than you ever wanted to know about objects [was: Is everything a refrence or isn't it]

2006-01-14 Thread Alex Martelli
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > 3. If two objects are equal with "==", does that > > mean their values are the same? > > Almost universally, yes, although if you know enough about how the > interpreter works "under the hood" you can define the response of > instances of your

More than you ever wanted to know about objects [was: Is everything a refrence or isn't it]

2006-01-13 Thread Steve Holden
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [...] >> >>you really have trouble with abstract concepts, don't you? > > > Usually not when they are explained well. > You want to be careful - the bot will get you! Don't be rude to the bot! > >>*what* the value i

Re: More than you ever wanted to know about objects [was: Is everything a refrence or isn't it]

2006-01-12 Thread Bengt Richter
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 03:12:00 +, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >Note to nitpickers >-- >Please note that I *am* oversimplifying here, and the nitpickers will >undoubtedly find many threadsworth of valuable material here. The point >is to develop an understanding