On Sat, Nov 22, 2003, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > The point of a deepcopy is to replace each sub-component (at every > nesting level) that could possibly change. Since sets can only contain > hashable objects which in turn can only contain hashable objects, I > surmise that a shallowcopy of a set would also suffice as its deepcopy. Thing is, it *is* possible to have a mutable and hashable object. The hashable part needs to be immutable, but not the rest. Consider dicts in the generic sense: the key needs to be immutable, but the value need not, and it certainly can be useful to combine key/value into a single object. Now, I'm still not sure that your analysis is wrong, but I wanted to be very, very clear that hashability is not the same thing as immutability. -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
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