At 11:33 AM 4/20/04 -0400, Andrew Koenig wrote: > > You could, of course, create a statement like "const len" to flag that > > len will NOT be changed, thus creating true backwards compatibility, > >Somehow this idea is getting tangled in my mind with the distinction between >mutable and immutable objects. When you use an object as a dict key, it >must not change, in order to allow the optimization that keys can be sought >through hashing rather than by sequential search. Similarly, making a name >such as True immutable allows the optimization that "while True:" can be >determined during compilation to be unconditional. > >I understand that there is a difference between the kinds of immutability, >but still there seems to be a strong connection here. I think it's a bad idea to confuse a read-only name binding, and the concept of an immutable object. They aren't the same thing, although the former can be implemented by a namespace that is the latter.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4