Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> writes: > Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au>: > > > First reason: This is better done by making it clear the value is an > > arbitrary object that won't be compared for equality. Just use > > ‘object()’ to creeate each value and be done with it. That's a hack, > > but it's better than pretending you'll use the string as a string of > > text and then breaking that expectation. […] > > So, I think Marko's use case is not a justification for comparing > > string values with ‘is’. > > […] However, since any distinct objects will do, there is nothing > preventing you from using string objects.
As has been pointed out to you, the whole point here is that string objects often *are not* distinct, despite conceptually having distinct cretion in the source. That's why an ‘object()’ invocation is recommended: because it *will* create distinct objects. Strings do not have that property. So strings are *not* suitable for this use case. -- \ “It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you | `\ know that you would lie if you were in his place.” —Henry L. | _o__) Mencken | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
