Grzegorz Słodkowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's just theorisation but I'd rather expect the interpreter > simply not to create a second tuple while there already is an > identical one.
Others have already said that it's an implementation optimisation, which seems to partly answer your question. It's important to also realise that the language is *deliberately* non-committal on whether any given value will have this behaviour; that is, it's entirely left to the language implementation which optimisation trade-offs to make, and the language user (that's you and I) should *not* expect any particular behaviour to hold between different implementations. -- \ "Holy priceless collection of Etruscan snoods, Batman!" -- | `\ Robin | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
