Op 2005-01-21, Bengt Richter schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 20 Jan 2005 14:07:57 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Would you like a dictionary that acts as you want and takes care of all
> problems internally, and accepts keys and values of any type without wrapping
> or other mo
On 20 Jan 2005 14:07:57 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Op 2005-01-20, Nick Coghlan schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>> I missed that you would use it with the idiom: dct[x.frozen()]
>>
>> The list itself isn't hashable with this approach, so you don't have much
Op 2005-01-20, Nick Coghlan schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> I missed that you would use it with the idiom: dct[x.frozen()]
>
> The list itself isn't hashable with this approach, so you don't have much
> choice. I wasn't particularly clear about that point, though.
>
>> I hav
Antoon Pardon wrote:
I missed that you would use it with the idiom: dct[x.frozen()]
The list itself isn't hashable with this approach, so you don't have much
choice. I wasn't particularly clear about that point, though.
I have two problems with this approach.
1) It doesn't work when you get your
Op 2005-01-20, Nick Coghlan schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Interesting idea. But I think you are wrong when you say that two lists
>> that compare equal at the time they are frozen, will get the same
>> dictionary entry. The problem is an object must compare equal to
>> the
