On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:45:00 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:55:52 -0800, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > My own preference: No is operator; only id when we deliberately need to > > poke into the implementation. > > Of course I am in a miniscule minority I guess on that :-) > If I have understood you, I think that's a poor way of looking at it. We > can have an `is` operator to determine whether or not two objects are the > same, without having a concept of object IDs; but you can't have a > concept of object IDs without having distinct objects. `is` is more > fundamental than id(). Pick is or id. Matters little To define either you need the notion of 'same' > IDs are a proxy for distinct objects. If you live in a country with an ID > card of some sort, then the IDs acts as an identifier for each unique > individual. But countries without ID cards don't lack unique individual > people. With humans like Chris' dice the notion of 'same' is unexceptionable [well sci-fi, teleportation etc aside :-) ] To define is or id or same you need to 1 use machine details or 2 do mathematics or 3 wave our hands -- Dont we all know that same is same? <Wild Wave> My bet is that python's id/is cannot be defined with 2 so we use a combo of 1 and 3 -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
