Message169404
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Arfrever, christian.heimes, georg.brandl, loewis, mark.dickinson, meador.inge, ncoghlan, pitrou, skrah, vstinner |
| Date | 2012-08-29.18:01:26 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1346263077.3344.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| In-reply-to | <1346262885.95.0.511946076589.issue15814@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> I think the proper solution is to make memoryview objects unhashable. Disagreed. If memoryviews are to be bytes-like objects they should be hashable (at least when readonly). > Any other approach will have flaws of some kind. Not more so than equality between memoryviews. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-08-29 18:01:27 | pitrou | set | recipients: + pitrou, loewis, georg.brandl, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, vstinner, christian.heimes, Arfrever, skrah, meador.inge |
| 2012-08-29 18:01:27 | pitrou | link | issue15814 messages |
| 2012-08-29 18:01:26 | pitrou | create | |