"Phillip J. Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com> writes: > At 12:31 PM 10/26/04 +0100, Michael Hudson wrote: >>"Phillip J. Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com> writes: >> >> > At 09:36 AM 10/25/04 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >>Well, then perhaps code object comparison (and function object >> >>comparison) ought to work the same as 'is', not try to do something >> >>clever? >> >>+1 >> >> > Isn't that what function objects do now? (for some value of "now") >> >>Probably. I don't see the relavence, though. > > Because Guido sounded like he was saying that function objects didn't > already do that. Uh, yeah, I clearly wrote that post before I'd drunk enough coffee... Cheers, mwh -- Java sucks. [...] Java on TV set top boxes will suck so hard it might well inhale people from off their sofa until their heads get wedged in the card slots. --- Jon Rabone, ucam.chat
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