On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 02:11:53 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au>: > >> 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. > > You know full well that this initialization creates references to > distinct objects: > > class ABC: > IDLE = "IDLE" > CONNECTING = "CONNECTING" > CONNECTED = "CONNECTED" > DISCONNECTING = "DISCONNECTING" > DISCONNECTED = "DISCONNECTED" > > The 5 constants can (and should) be distinguished with the "is" > operator. Using "==" in this case would be slightly misleading.
I disagree. You are focusing on identity, but identity is (usually) not important. That's an implementation detail. What we have here is the curse of the singleton design anti-pattern: http://accu.org/index.php/journals/337 https://molecularmusings.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/singleton-is-an-anti-pattern/ Since the symbols IDLE, CONNECTING etc. don't have state apart from their name, whether there is one or a million and one instances is irrelevant. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
