In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Otten wrote: >Instead of the (unreliable) introspection approach you could let the client >code decide:
See my reply to Alex Martelli's post, where I explain my original desire for one function that works with a wide variety of present and future object types. Your solution accomplishes that, but only by forcing the caller to convert the argument to a list of pairs. If the caller knows the type it's going to pass down, that's easy. If the caller doesn't know, your approach doesn't seem any easier than mine. In practice, with my needs of inverting dicts and lists, your solution might not be a bad one. -- Derek -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
