Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #30999
| References | <CAEBZo3PhCXURW1FWpmSQYpUj7DrquXfjuF7xztFHFd4TymNjsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP7+vJJRhp8Nm+LJrqmo1aR92_rNRf2T-Jm3+Rt9kiCrp0QNMQ@mail.gmail.com> <20121009020327.GB27445@ando> <CAP7+vJJkcHXN+Jf2COuTOvj4NVkrNG6f9W+dwSW89_i4DRcEoQ@mail.gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 18:06 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: [Python-ideas] Make "is" checks on non-singleton literals errors |
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1983.1349766382.27098.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote: > Maybe we should do something more drastic and always create a new, > unique constant whenever a literal occurs as an argument of 'is' or > 'is not'? Then such code would never work, leading people to examine > their code more closely. I betcha we have people who could change the > bytecode compiler easily enough to do that. (I'm not seriously > proposing this, except as a threat of what we could do if the > SyntaxWarning is rejected. :-) That wouldn't guarantee that the code would never work, merely that the 'is' checks would be never true. Dangerous if the condition is a guard for an unusual condition. A unit test could of course catch it, but that assumes that everyone who writes "if x is 0" has tests probing both branches of that check... ChrisA
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [Python-ideas] Make "is" checks on non-singleton literals errors Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 18:06 +1100
csiph-web