(If I understand correctly...) The reason he is looking for it, is in order to assert that Python 'comparison' is broken.
Part of this is because of his assertation that the term 'value' has no meaning in Python. He bases this on the fact that Java and C define 'value' to mean the pointer when the object is mutable. In fact Python defines value much more clearly. Value is *obviously* type dependent. (This is why in Python you can implement your own comparison methods). For integers and floats, Python defines the value to be the numerical value. For strings it defines it to be the contents of the string. For mutable objects it defines it to be the contents of the object, if the object types are the same. i.e. [1] == [1], [1] != (1,) For user defined classes, you are able to build your own definition of value into the object - this doesn't prevent stupidity. Python doesn't have a comparison operator analagous to his reference languages - but IMHO Python is better here. He can achieve what he wants by subclassing the built in datatypes and overriding the comparison methods to behave as he desires. All the best, Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
