On 10 Apr 2013 08:01, "Dmitrey"
--- Исходное сообщение --- От кого: "Robert Kern"
Дата: 9 апреля 2013, 14:29:43 On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Dmitrey
wrote: --- Исходное сообщение --- От кого: "Robert Kern"
Дата: 16 марта 2013, 22:15:07 On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Dmitrey
wrote: --- Исходное сообщение --- От кого: "Robert Kern"
Дата: 16 марта 2013, 19:54:51 On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Matthieu Brucher
wrote: Even if they have different hashes, they can be stored in the same underlying list before they are retrieved. Then, an actual
done to check if the given key (i.e. object instance, not hash) is
same as one of the stored keys.
Right. And the rule is that if two objects compare equal, then they must also hash equal. Unfortunately, it looks like `oofun` objects do not obey this property. oofun.__eq__() seems to return a Constraint rather than a bool, so oofun objects should simply not be used as dictionary keys.
It is one of several base features FuncDesigner is build on and is used extremely often and wide; then whole FuncDesigner would work incorrectly while it is used intensively and solves many problems better than its competitors.
I understand. It just means that you can't oofun objects as dictionary keys. Adding a __hash__() method is not enough to make that work.
No, it just means I had mapped, have mapped, map and will map oofun objects as Python dict keys.
Well, it's your software. You are free to make it as buggy as you wish, I guess.
Yes, and that's why each time I get a bugreport I immediately start working on it, so usually I have zero opened bugs, as now . It somewhat differs from your bugtracker , that has tens of opened bugs, and ~ half of
comparison is the them are hanging for years (also, half of them are mentioned as high and highest priority) . But it's definitely your right to keep it as buggy as you wish, as well! This kind of personal attack is never appropriate for this list. Please stop. -n