vdrab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >let's say there's a certain property P, for the sake of this loooong >discussion, something >more or less like a class or type's property of "having immutable >values, such that any instance with value X has a single, unique >representation in memory and any two instantiations of objects with >that value X are in fact references to the same object". > >Then, for example, python strings have property P whereas python lists >do not:
Er, no: >>> x = "test!" >>> y = "test!" >>> x == y True >>> x is y False Strings only get a unique instance if they are valid identifiers. Again, it's an optimisation issue. As with ints, it >_depends_on_their_value_. >I find it neither evident nor consistent. I don't think the above post >explains this, regardless of how you read "implementation". "Implementation dependent" => "Any behaviour you observe which is not explicitly documented is not to be relied upon". Also, "Implementation dependent" => "How this is implemented should be transparent and irrelevant to the normal user". No, it's not particularly consistent. Because it doesn't matter. -- \S -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.chaos.org.uk/~sion/ ___ | "Frankly I have no feelings towards penguins one way or the other" \X/ | -- Arthur C. Clarke her nu becomeþ se bera eadward ofdun hlæddre heafdes bæce bump bump bump
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list