On 10 Apr 2007 07:31:13 GMT, Antoon Pardon wrote > On 2007-04-06, Carsten Haese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you have a use case for tuple.index, please show it to me, and I'll > > show you what you should be using instead of a tuple. > > No wonder no convincing use cases for tuples have shown up. You just > defined use cases of tuples as unconvincing.
It's not a definition, it's an observation. I'm simply saying that all use cases I've seen for tuple.index could be written in a clearer fashion by using something else. Please prove me wrong by supplying a use case of tuple.index that can not be improved by rewriting. Note that I have proved elsewhere on this thread that any real use case for tuple.index will involve an operation to explicitly use an index different from the one obtained by the call to tuple.index(). I'd like to hear your opinion on this. > My personal opinion is that lack of use cases are used too much as an > excuse. Limiting the development of your language to use cases makes > your language less consistent and so makes your language less easy to > learn. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that adding features that don't have any uses just weigh the language down unnecessarily, and they distract programmers from finding the best solution to their problem. > Of course it also limits the language to what the developers can > think off. Initially, yes, but if enough use cases exist for a feature that the developers didn't think of, it will be implemented. -Carsten -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
