In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |> Nick Maclaren wrote: |> |> > The use of different precisions for the two cases is not, however, |> > and it is that I was and am referring to. |> |> that's by design, of course. maybe you should look "repr" up in the |> documentation ?
I think that you should. Where does it say that tuple's __str__ is the same as its __repr__? The obvious interpretation of the documentation is that a sequence type's __str__ would call __str__ on each sub-object, and its __repr__ would call __repr__. Regards, Nick Maclaren. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
