skip at pobox.com wrote: > >> Hm, but why would they still have to be tuples? Why not just > have a >> generic 'record' class? > > Tim> Hmm - possibilities. "record" definitely has greater > connotations Tim> of heterogeneous elements than "tuple", which > would put paid to the Tim> constant arguments that "a tuple is > really just an immutable list". > > (What do you mean by "... put paid ..."? It doesn't parse for me.) > Based on posts the current thread in c.l.py with the improbable > subject "f---ing typechecking", lots of people refuse to believe > tuples are anything other than immutable lists. Sorry - "put paid to" means "to finish" ... http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/293200.html That thread is a perfect example why I think a "record" type should be standard in python, and "tuple" should be deprecated (and removed in 3.0). Instead, have mutable and immutable lists, and mutable and immutable records. You could add a mutable list and an immutable list (resulting always in a new mutable list I think). You could *not* add two records together (even if neither had named elements). Cheers, Tim Delaney
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