Sybren Stuvel wrote: > Mike Meyer enlightened us with: > >>>I think type 'object' has only one value, so that's it. >> >>In that case, they should all be equal, right? >> >> >>>>>object() == object() >> >>False > > > You compare instances of the type 'object'. They both have one value: > > >>>>object() > > <object object at 0xb7ddb438> > >>>>object() > > <object object at 0xb7ddb440> > > So the claim "type 'object' has only one value" is true. It's just not > the same value for all instances.
No, that's not the issue. A type has a set of values (and a set of operations); each instance takes one value from the type's set. I think (I'm not sure) that object's set of values has only one element. In Python, types are extensible, so by 'instance', I mean a direct instance, not an instance of a class that inherits from 'object'. Would it make sense to have a type with an empty set of values? Sure. Such a type could never have a direct instance. Perhaps 'object' should be an abstract base class. -- --Bryan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
