←back to thread

191 points jwilk | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.235s | source
Show context
pansa2 ◴[] No.46230704[source]
I wonder whether Raymond Hettinger has an opinion on this PEP. A long time ago, he wrote: "freezing dicts is a can of worms and not especially useful".

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/0...

replies(8): >>46230899 #>>46230957 #>>46231064 #>>46231597 #>>46232170 #>>46234698 #>>46235104 #>>46271495 #
zahlman ◴[] No.46231064[source]
> Another PEP 351 world view is that tuples can serve as frozenlists; however, that view represents a Liskov violation (tuples don't support the same methods). This idea resurfaces and has be shot down again every few months.

... Well, yes; it doesn't support the methods for mutation. Thinking of ImmutableFoo as a subclass of Foo is never going to work. And, indeed, `set` and `frozenset` don't have an inheritance relationship.

I normally find Hettinger very insightful so this one is disappointing. But nobody's perfect, and we change over time (and so do the underlying conditions). I've felt like frozendict was missing for a long time, though. And really I think the language would have been better with a more formal concept of immutability (e.g. linking it more explicitly to hashability; having explicit recognition of "cache" attributes, ...), even if it didn't go the immutable-by-default route.

replies(5): >>46231200 #>>46231991 #>>46235637 #>>46236476 #>>46241200 #
1. tmp10423288442 ◴[] No.46235637[source]
And, to the point of this proposal, `dict` and `frozendict` don't have an inheritance relationship either.