At 12:31 PM 10/26/04 +0100, Michael Hudson wrote:
"Phillip J. Eby" pje@telecommunity.com writes:
At 09:36 AM 10/25/04 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, then perhaps code object comparison (and function object comparison) ought to work the same as 'is', not try to do something clever?
+1
Isn't that what function objects do now? (for some value of "now")
Probably. I don't see the relavence, though.
Because Guido sounded like he was saying that function objects didn't already do that.
Python 2.3.4 (#1, Jun 13 2004, 11:21:03) [GCC 3.3.1 (cygming special)] on cygwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
l = [lambda:None for i in 0,1] l[0]==l[1]
False
l[0].func_code is l[1].func_code
True
What's happened *here* is that two code objects got compiled up for the two lambdas, but they compare equal so only one goes into co_consts.
Actually, no. There's only one code object, otherwise this:
[lambda:None for i in range(10000)]
would somehow create 10000 code objects, which makes no sense. There's simply a 1:1 mapping between function and class suites in a source text, and code objects created in the module's co_consts. Code comparison has nothing to do with it.