> > It certainly doesn't *require* a builtin operator. I do think, > > however, that the proposed comparison is more useful than "is" in > > most contexts in which programmers use "is" today. > Are you saying that most instances of "is" in current Python code > are incorrect? If not, what do you mean by more useful? I strongly suspect that most instances of "is" in current Python code would not change their meaning, because most instances of "is" use either singletons or mutable objects. However, I also think that a number of uses of "is" that are currently incorrect, sometimes in subtle ways, would become useful. As things stand, I think I reluctantly agree that it's too big a change to consider, because I can certainly imagine programs that might break. Nevertheless, I still wish that expressions such as "x is 'foo'" did not silently differ in outcome from one implementation to another.
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