On 5/11/2010 11:54 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote: > I know for functions "==" and "is" currently are equivalent, but we should be > really finicky here about intent, especially since a few messages in the > thread is contemplate testing function for equivalence to one degree or > other. At which point "==" and "is" aren't the same any more. > As I stated above, I make no effort to address equivalence of the functions, nor of the arguments. I am addressing identity of the partial object, which I am defining as identity of the functions + identity of the args + equivalence of the keyword arguments after a deterministic process has been applied.
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