On 08/07/11 17:19, Armin Rigo wrote:
> As I said in my previous e-mail, I think that e.g. copy.py relies on
> such behavior, and more generally any Python code that has to use id()
> to emulate an identity-dict --- as broken as that approach is, just
> because CPython thought that identity-dicts were unnecessary.
>
> It may not actually be a problem right now in copy.py, but still, I
> fear that it's a problem waiting to hurt us.
I don't think that copy.py relies on this behavior (even after looking at the
code, but I might wrong).
My point is that we are not breaking id(); identity dicts emulated using id()
continue to work as normal.
The only assumption that we are breaking is this one, which has nothing to do
with identity dicts or id().
d = {}
d[x] = None
assert d.keys()[0] is x
As fijal points out, the semantics of this particular behavior is already
half-broken, even in CPython. E.g., in the following example we never remove
anything from the dictionary, nevertheless a key "disappears":
x = 1003
d = {x: None}
assert d.keys()[0] is x
d[1000+3] = None
assert d.keys()[0] is x # BOOM
ciao,
Anto
_______________________________________________
pypy-dev mailing list
pypy-dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
