Compare with is (vs ==) in enum rule

[ankostis]

Similar to #164, this patch avoids calling overridden __eq__() in the modified enum rule after v3.0.2 (due to #575),
so that e.g. pandas (series & dataframes) don't choke on enum rules.

[Julian]

Hi. Thanks.

This one is trickier -- it's not necessarily correct here. Unlike #164, those aren't singletons -- an implementation is free to have 0 == 0 but the two 0's not being the same object.

[Julian]

(So might need to think about what a solution that'd work here would be, but a failing test would be great as well!)

[ankostis]

but a failing test would be great as well!

I had long thought of building one, just to weed out some more hurdles when dealing with pandas as instances (it is possible to do that in the end, needs 2-3 interventions in the rules and more in the type checkers).

Let's hope, now that i managed to teach my quarantined daughter not to interrupt me too much :-), i manage to serve such a test case.
Would it be ok if it imported pandas?

[Julian]

Let's hope, now that i managed to teach my quarantined daughter not to interrupt me too much :-), i manage to serve such a test case.

Ha! Good luck (hope you, her and the rest of your family are all well...)

Would it be ok if it imported pandas?

If need be that's fine, though I suspect it'll be simpler to define a small class with an __eq__ that has the peculiarity that's relevant here? But if it's tons simpler either is fine.