Ishwor wrote: > I am trying some interactive examples here where i have come across > inconsistencies??? :O
obsession with implementation artifacts is a premature optimization, and should be avoided. > Anyway heres whats bothering me > >>>> s = 'hello' >>>> s[0] > 'h' >>>> s[:] > 'hello' >>>> m = s[:] >>>> m > 'hello' >>>> m is s > True > > I discussed the *is* operator with some of the pythoners before as > well but it is somewhat different than what i intended it to do. The > LP2E by Mark & David says - > " m gets a *full top-level copy* of a sequence object- an object with > the same value but distinct piece of memory." but when i test them > with *is* operator then the result is True. Why is this happening?? since you cannot modify a string in place, the string implementation can safely return the original string as the "full copy". "mutable" objects (such as lists and arrays) cannot cheat. a suggestion: if you really want to be productive in python, forget about "is" for a while. good code doesn't copy stuff much, either, by the way. python's all about objects, and things that hold references to objects. </F> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
