At 05:40 PM 3/19/04 -0500, Andrew Koenig wrote: >Nevertheless, I still wish that expressions such as "x is 'foo'" did not >silently differ in outcome from one implementation to another. The part that drives me nuts about this discussion is that in my view, "x is 'foo'" has the *same* outcome on all implementations. That is, it's true if x refers to that exact string object. The thing that's different from one implementation to the next is whether there's any chance in hell of x being that same 'foo' string. But to me, that 'foo' string looks like a *newly created* string, so to the naive glance there's no possible way that it could be the same object. In other words, it looks like a bad expression to use in the first place: one that's guaranteed to be false, except by accident of implementation. So, I have trouble understanding how it is that somebody could get to a place where they think that using 'is' for strings and numbers is a good idea in the first place. But then, I read the entire Python language reference (and a good chunk of the library reference) before I tried writing even a single line of Python code, so I can imagine that my perspective on this might not be the most common one. :)
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