In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ziga Seilnacht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |> |> > 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__. |> |> How would you distinguish ['3', '2', '1'] from [3, 2, 1] in that case?
Well, it's not felt necessary to distinguish those at top level, so why should it be when they are in a sequence? print "3", 3 3 3 But this whole thing is getting ridiculous. The current implementation is a bizarre interpretation of the specification, but clearly not an incorrect one. It isn't important enough to get involved in a religious war over - I was merely puzzled as to the odd behaviour, because I have to teach it, and it is the sort of thing that can confuse naive users. Regards, Nick Maclaren. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
