Hello Armin, > The test as you reported it shows the intended behavior of DictDefs; > what did you expect, i.e. what are you trying to achieve?
Yesterday (before r17525) there was an assertion about the contains() method when used on SomeIterators. I tried to see what was going on, and why a SomeIterator did not contain itself. In the pdb session, I tried some unionof() statements, and was very confused by the non-reproducible results... > The two dicts are unrelated; the annotator thinks they come from > different creation points. Until proven otherwise the two SomeDict()s > represent two unrelated sets of possible run-time dictionaries. This makes sense, and is what I had in mind. > > > x = unionof(dic1, dic2) > > This means that the two dicts actually go into the same place, so that > the two dicts are now known to be just two different creation points for > what is essentially the same kind of dict. So unionof() has the > side-effect of making def1 and def2 complete synonyms. Now the two > SomeDict()s stand for the same possibly larger set of run-time > dictionaries. Ah, I did not see the "no_side_effects_in_union" trick. Now I understand that union() is meant to have the side-effect you describe, and that contains() has no side-effect and is safe to use in assertions. Thanks for your patient explanations. -- Amaury Forgeot d'Arc Ubix Development www.ubitrade.com _______________________________________________ pypy-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
