On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:29 AM Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > Chris Angelico wrote: > > The hashability issue is a logical consequence of accepting that the > > above violations are reasonable and practically useful. > > A more principled way to handle this wouild be for object not > to be hashable, and have another base type for hashable objects. > Hashable would then be a subtype of object, not the other way > around. >
The question then would be: why is object() not hashable? It can't be mutable, because then you violate LSP the other way (for the same reason frozenset isn't a subclass of set), and there'd be no logical reason for equality to be defined in any way that would violate hashability. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/7O73MVQBTJ4VYUOJ3Z2HQPO2JWH7K7TR/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
