This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author serhiy.storchaka
Recipients Kevin Shweh, Tijs Van Oevelen, arigo, donmez, ezio.melotti, fijall, ncoghlan, r.david.murray, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, torsten
Date 2015-12-13.08:54:12
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1449996852.68.0.870204393501.issue25843@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> The lowest impact fix from a code change would be to add a type equivalence check for constants as Raymond first suggested, as that only involves adding an extra check to code_richcompare: https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/tip/Objects/codeobject.c#l416

It is not so easy. (1,) and (1.0,) are equal and have the same type. To make correct type-sensitive equivalence check, you need to introduce new protocol, new special method on low level and new operator/function on high level.
History
Date User Action Args
2015-12-13 08:54:12serhiy.storchakasetrecipients: + serhiy.storchaka, arigo, rhettinger, ncoghlan, donmez, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, torsten, fijall, Kevin Shweh, Tijs Van Oevelen
2015-12-13 08:54:12serhiy.storchakasetmessageid: <1449996852.68.0.870204393501.issue25843@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-12-13 08:54:12serhiy.storchakalinkissue25843 messages
2015-12-13 08:54:12serhiy.storchakacreate