Op 2004-12-15, Steve Holden schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon wrote: > >> Op 2004-12-15, Roel Schroeven schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>>Antoon Pardon wrote: >>> >>>>Op 2004-12-15, Fredrik Lundh schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> >>>>>sorry, but I don't understand your reply at all. are you saying that >>>>>dictionaries >>>>>could support mutable keys (e.g lists) by making a copy of the key? how >>>>>would >>>>>such a dictionary pick up changes to the original key object? (I'm >>>>>talking about >>>>>the key stored in the dictionary, not the key you're using to look things >>>>>up). >>>> >>>> >>>>You want to mutate a key that is within a dictionary? >>> >>>No, we don't want to mutate it; as far as I know, that is exactly the >>>reason why dictionaries don't support mutable keys. >> >> >> And I think that is a stupid reason. There are enough other situations >> were people work with mutable objects but don't wish to mutate specific >> objects. Like objects in a sorted sequence you want to keep that way >> or objects in a heapqueue etc. >> >> Demanding that users of dictioanaries somehow turn their mutable objects >> into tuples when used as a key and back again when you retrieve the keys >> and need the object can IMO ibe a bigger support nightmare than the >> possibility that code mutates a key in a dictionary. >> > So provide your objects with a __hash__ method, and you can use them as > dictionary keys. > > Sheesh, learn Python already. What a troll. [Plonk] >
Let me get this straight. You first say dictionaries don't support mutable keys for some reason. I say I find it a stupid reason. Then you mark me a troll because I don't know the language while at the same time making a suggestion that implies your original remark about python was wrong. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
