Jim Jewett wrote:
> Yes, but it is a TypeError today. Is it worth the backwards
> compatibility?
I'd say yes for the sake of doing things right, in particular as we are
talking about Py3k, but then I don't think I have a good picture of all
the things that would be broken by this change.
> That
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Another constraint is that hashable objects, once created, should
> never change their value (as compared by ``==``) or their hash value.
> If a class cannot guarantee this, it should not derive from
> ``Hashable``; if it cannot guarantee this for certain
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> I'm sure you're aware about it, but in Zope 3 terminology, these are
>> 'provide' and 'implement', respectively.
>
> I like provide, but I'm not so sure about implement, since it is awfully
> ambiguous -- most of the time it is the class that does the implementing.
> Th
Am Sun, 02 Apr 2006 09:29:13 -0700 schrieb Guido van Rossum:
> Just to confirm what's already been said, this was considered very
> carefully and won't change.
OK, thanks.
--
Thomas
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.pyth
Hi,
I wonder what's the reason for iterating over a dict by keys:
>>> for x in {1:"a", 2:"b"}:
... print x
...
1
2
I find it much more intuitive for the values, "a" and "b", to be accessed.
This is particularly confusing as iterating over tuples, lists and sets in
the same way does access t
