Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Nick Coghlan schrieb:
>>> I'd like to repeat Guido's question: Why does this still need to
>>> support the tuple interface (i.e. indexed access)?
>>
>> So that it remains interoperable with existing libraries that expect a
>> tuple? Otherwise you'd be casting (and copying) every time you needed
>> to pass it to something that used indexed access.
>
> Can you give a few example, for libraries where this isn't already done?
I don't have any specific examples of that, no - that's why I phrased it
as a question.
However, another aspect that occurred to me is that inheriting from
tuple has significant practical benefits in terms of speed and memory
consumption, at which point it doesn't seem worthwhile to *remove* the
indexing capability.
I suppose you *could* write a completely new C-level record class, but
given that Raymond's NamedTuple class gets good performance from a
Python implementation, rewriting it in C seems like wasted effort.
Regards,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
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