Why keep identity-based equality comparison?
mwm at mired.org
Wed Jan 11 01:27:24 CET 2006
spam.noam at gmail.com writes:
> It seems to me that both Mike's and Fuzzyman's objections were that
> sometimes you want the current behaviour, of saying that two objects
> are equal if they are: 1. the same object or 2. have the same value
> (when it's meaningful). In both cases this can be accomplished pretty
> easily: You can do it with a try..except block, and you can write the
> try...except block inside the __contains__ method. (It's really pretty
> simple: try: return a == b except TypeError: return a is b )
This isn't "easy". It's an ugly hack you have to use everytime you
want to iterate through a heterogenous set doing equality tests.
You're replacing "false" with an "emphathetic false", that *all*
containers to change for the worse to deal with it.
> Also, Mike said that you'll need an idlist object too - and I think
> he's right and that there's nothing wrong with it.
Except that we now need four versions of internal data structures,
instead of two: list, tuple, idlist, idtuple; set, idset, frozenset,
frozenidset, and so on. What's wrong with this is that it's ugly.
> Note that while you
> can easily define the current == behaviour using the proposed
> behaviour, you can't define the proposed behaviour using the current
Yes you can, and it's even easy. All you have to do is use custom
classes that raise an exception if they don't
> Also note that using the current behaviour, you can't easily
> treat objects that do define a meaningful value comparison, by
Yes you can. Just use the "is" operator.
Note that this behavior also has the *highly* pecular behavior that a
doesn't necessarily equal a by default.
I will point out why your example usages aren't really usefull if
you'll repeat your post with newlines.
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
More information about the Python-list