Reference

Ben Finney ben+python at benfinney.id.au
Wed Mar 5 07:40:40 CET 2014


Rustom Mody <rustompmody at gmail.com> writes:

> All I am saying is that 'is' should have (be!) a name that is not
> philosophically grandiloquent bullshit but rather a name that more
> accurately conveys 'machine-representation-equivalence'

You haven't made either case.

How is the simple abstraction of object identity characterised as
“philosophically grandiloquent bullshit”?

Why should we discard the useful abstraction of object identity as it
currently is in Python, for some different concept that you prefer
(“machine representation equivalence”, whatever that's supposed to be —
I don't care right now, only that you want something different from what
is now) and have not justified why?

-- 
 \      “The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But |
  `\     the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound |
_o__)                                              truth.” —Niels Bohr |
Ben Finney




More information about the Python-list mailing list