En Wed, 02 May 2007 01:42:17 -0300, Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Michael schrieb: >> A bit more info, but still no clear picture about why functions are >> mutable but have immutable copy symantics. There are arguments why >> functions should be immutable, but the decision was to make user- >> defined functions mutable. My question is still: why the present >> ummutable copy symantics? > > The answer is really really simple. The implementation of copy predates > mutability. When the copy code was written, functions *were* immutable. > When functions became mutable, the copy code was not changed, and > nobody noticed or complained. Likely scenario, but not true. Support for copying user functions was added on 2.5 (see http://svn.python.org/view/python/trunk/Lib/copy.py?rev=42573&r1=38995&r2=42573) and functions were mutable since a long time ago. On previous versions, functions could be pickled but not copied. The same thing happens for classes: they are mutable too, but copy considers them immutable and returns the same object. This is clearly stated on the documentation (but the module docstring is still outdated). -- Gabriel Genellina -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
