[Martin v. Loewis] >I understand Samuele was talking about mapping in the Python sense >(existance of dictionary-style containers); he also mentioned that >Jython creates a Python wrapper object for each "foreign" Java object. Your summery is quite accurate. When this was discussed on jython-dev, I said I preferred a solution where all objects was inserted in your "map" dictionary when id() was called on them. Not just the wrapped java instances. I picked that preference because I think using id() is a relative uncommon operation. In the Lib modules, id() is used to detect cycles in copy.py, pickle.py, pprint.py and xmlrpclib. I would rather have a slow id() operation on python objects too, than burden all python objects with an additional int or long. Is that a wrong call? In the repr() of a lot of internal objects, the id() is used in the return string. Would anyone rightly expect that hex number to match the id() value of the object? In our discussions we agreed that the repr() string does not have to match the value return by id(). regards, finn
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