Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The idea is that a 2-tuple (of numbers, say) is a pair of numbers, a > > 3-tuple is three numbers, and a 1-tuple is one number. That would > > mean a number and a 1-tuple of numbers are the same thing, not > > separate types. > > No, that doesn't follow.
It doesn't follow in the sense of being an unavoidable consequence of something, it's just a plausible interpretation which is in fact widely used. > > This is how most type systems treat tuples. > I take it you have particular systems in mind, but I've never used a > programming language that works that way. Basically the entire class of typed functional languages, I believe. > That "oddness" has nothing to do with tuples-of-one being strange, nor > does it imply that tuples are fundamentally different from other > collection types. The oddness is that most other languages (at least those that I know of) that have tuples, treat them as product types and not as collection types. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
