Don't yell.
You just effectively re-implemented Christopher Barker's solution (which was
also present in the StackOverflow thread), with the downside that it fails the
immutability criterion.
Saying "just be careful not to mutate the original datastructure" isn't a
solution. There's a reason we have immutable types: To enforce​ immutability.
Otherwise, why aren't you proposing getting rid of the tuple type entirely?
------- Original Message -------
On Friday, March 11th, 2022 at 4:29 PM, David Mertz, Ph.D.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 4:16 PM wfdc via Python-ideas <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> why haven't you used a list
>> 2. I don't want to modify the original sequence.
>
> There's a really easy solution for you that will even be more perfomant.
>
> Use a list and DON'T modify the original!
>
> This is ABSOLUTELY an XY-problem.... which fact was difficult to wrestle out
> of you.
>
>>>> stuff1 = [a, b, c, d]
>>>> stuff2 = stuff1[:]
>>>> stuff2[2] = e
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/K2UOQGYTQVARPHTVYDPW76JGKQ2PT4K4/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
