On 2007-04-10, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Now with implementation and maintaining. If you would start with a class >> of sequence which classes like tuple and list would inherit from, then >> there also would be a single function to be implemented and maintained. >> It would just be usable in more types. > > There isn't a "big win" in this case: the intersection of useful > methods between mutable and immutable sequence types is rather small. > Nevertheless, providing a slightly deeper abstract class hierarchy > might be appropriate, and this is being considered for Python 3000.
Well I wasn't trying to show this aspect as a big win. Just illustrating it doesn't have to be a big cost in this case. >> The same happened with the ternary operator. Every use case someone >> could come up with was rejected by rewriting the code without using >> a ternary operator. AFAICS the only reason the ternary operator >> finaly got introduced was because a python developer was bitten by an >> illusive bug, introduced by one of the idioms that was often used as a >> way to simulate a ternary operator. > > The ternary operator, whilst providing new and occasionally useful > functionality, is rather "badly phrased" in my opinion: when used, > it's a bit like reading one natural language and suddenly having the > grammar of another in use for the rest of the sentence. I agree. The structure of the if-expression doesn't resemble the structure of the if-statement. I think it was a bad choice to have the two so dissimilar. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
