How can "k in d" be False, but "k in d.keys()" be True?

I ha开发者_如何学JAVAve some python code that's throwing a KeyError exception. So far I haven't been able to reproduce outside of the operating environment, so I can't post a reduced test case here.

The code that's raising the exception is iterating through a loop like this:

for k in d.keys():
    if condition:
        del d[k]

The del[k] line throws the exception. I've added a try/except clause around it and have been able to determine that k in d is False, but k in d.keys() is True.

The keys of d are bound methods of old-style class instances.

The class implements __cmp__ and __hash__, so that's where I've been focusing my attention.

k in d.keys() will test equality iteratively for each key, while k in d uses __hash__, so your __hash__ may be broken (i.e. it returns different hashes for objects that compare equal).

Simple example of what's broken, for interest:

>>> count = 0
>>> class BrokenHash(object):
...     def __hash__(self):
...             global count
...             count += 1
...             return count
...
...     def __eq__(self, other):
...             return True
...
>>> foo = BrokenHash()
>>> bar = BrokenHash()
>>> foo is bar
False
>>> foo == bar
True
>>> baz = {bar:1}
>>> foo in baz
False
>>> foo in baz.keys()
True

Don't delete items in d while iterating over it, store the keys you want to delete in a list and delete them in another loop:

deleted = []
for k in d.keys():
    if condition:
        deleted.append(k)
for k in deleted:
    del d[k]

What you're doing would throw a a concurrent modification exception in Java. d.keys() creates a list of the keys as they exist when you call it, but that list is now static - modifications to d will not change a stored version of d.keys(). So when you iterate over d.keys() but delete items, you end up with the possibility of modifying a key that is no longer there.

You can use d.pop(k, None), which will return either the value mapped to k or None, if k is not present. This avoids the KeyError problem.

EDIT: For clarification, to prevent more phantom downmods (no problem with negative feedback, just make it constructive and leave a comment so we can have a potentially informative discussion - I'm here to learn as well as help):

It's true that in this particular condition it shouldn't get messed up. I was just bringing it up as a potential issue, because if he's using the same kind of coding scheme in another portion of the program where he isn't so careful/lucky about how he's treating the data structure, such problems could arise. He isn't even using a dictionary, as well, but rather a class that implements certain methods so you can treat it in a similar fashion.