On Aug 12, 3:32 pm, James Stroud <nospamjstroudmap...@mbi.ucla.edu>
wrote:
> You should be more imaginative.
I'm by no means discounting that there might be some actual problem
you're trying to solve here, but I honestly can't see it.
There really is no need to get personal about this, so rather than
asking for a level of imagination from me, (which I apparently lack),
please just explain to me how {one_instance_of_a_hashable_class : val,
another_instance_of_a_hashable_class :val} is conceptually different
{one_instance_of_class_str: val, another_instance_of_class_str: val},
in terms of persistence.
If I am missing something here, I would actually like to know. If on
the other hand, I'm not, then rather at taking umbrage, you might want
instead to save yourself the effort of solving a non-existent problem?
> Can you come give a class to my users?
No.
However, I think it's fairly central to the notion of a class that it
is a template for creating different instances which themselves have a
unique identity. And that subsequent calls to a class' constructor
ought to create unique instances of that class (subject perhaps to
implementation tricks such as interning). If it is not obvious that {C
():4}[C()] invovles subsequent calls to C's constructor, then that
very example is itself didactic.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
