gh-101346: compare and hash code objects by identity #103297
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@carljm |
|
@markshannon I did close it intentionally because I become unconvinced we should merge it. But I'm happy to reopen it if we reach a different conclusion. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This removes the complex, finicky, and unnecessary hash and comparison methods of code objects. As code objects change, these methods regularly become out of date and have to be updated to account for new fields. And as code objects have become more mutable with the specializing interpreter, it makes less sense to treat them as value types.
After this PR, code objects are hashed/equal solely by identity (the default behavior of Python objects), which is faster and simpler.
Given that "naturally occurring" code objects are in practice never equal to each other by the old rules anyway, this only impacts such artificial cases as
code == code.replace()(which was previously true and is no longer true with this PR.)Closes #101346.