Author loewis
Recipients Arach, Arfrever, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, Jim.Jewett, Mark.Shannon, PaulMcMillan, Zhiping.Deng, alex, barry, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, dmalcolm, eric.araujo, eric.snow, fx5, georg.brandl, grahamd, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, gz, jcea, lemburg, loewis, mark.dickinson, neologix, pitrou, skrah, terry.reedy, tim.peters, v+python, vstinner, zbysz
Date 2012-01-26.22:42:24
SpamBayes Score 0.0102176
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
> What happens if, instead of putting strings in a dictionary directly, I
> have them wrapped in something.  For example, the classes Antoine and I
> pasted early.  These define hash and equal as being strings, but don't have
> an ordering.

As Dave has analysed: the dictionary falls back to the current implementation.
So wrt. your question "Is it still able to find the value?", the answer is

Yes, certainly. It's fully backwackwards compatible, with the limitation
in msg152030 (i.e. the dictionary order may change for dictionaries with
string keys colliding in their hash() values).
Date User Action Args
2012-01-26 22:42:25loewissetrecipients: + loewis, lemburg, gvanrossum, tim.peters, barry, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, gregory.p.smith, jcea, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, grahamd, Arfrever, v+python, alex, zbysz, skrah, dmalcolm, gz, neologix, Arach, Mark.Shannon, eric.snow, Zhiping.Deng, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, Jim.Jewett, PaulMcMillan, fx5
2012-01-26 22:42:24loewislinkissue13703 messages
2012-01-26 22:42:24loewiscreate