Christian Tismer wrote: > And the key assumption for sorting things is that > the things are sortable, which means there > exists and order on the basic set. > Which again suggests that list elements usually > have something in common. To me it suggests that some lists are sortable and others are not... There's one aspect about this discussion that I haven't seen mentioned yet: syntax. I think the suggested usages of lists vs. tuples has more to do with list vs. tuple _syntax_, and less with mutability. From this perspective it is natural that tuples support a different set of methods than lists. However, mutable vs. immutable has it's uses also, and from _that_ perspective it is far less understandable that tuples lack certain methods. FWIW, I quite like the way how the core classes in Cocoa/NextStep are designed. For each container-ish object there's a mutable an immutable variant, where the mutable variant is usually a subclass of the immutable one. Examples: NSString -> NSMutableString NSData -> NSMutableData NSArray -> NSMutableArray NSDictionary -> NSMutableDictionary (But then again, Objective-C doesn't have syntax support for lists _or_ tuples...) Just
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4