>> Consider this: >> a = (3 + 5) * 5 >> You really, really want (3 + 5) to be an integer, not a one-item tuple. > > I sometimes do wonder if some impliciteness wouldn't be better here, > so that any item could be treated as if it was a one-item tuple. > > A bit like every char being a string.
There is no char. There are strings of lenght 1. And the above example makes it clear that there would be an ambiguity that could _maybe_ be solved in a static typed language (the application of the (3+5) as left side to the operator <*> if <*> only is defined as [num, num] -> num), but clearly not in a dynamic typed one as python. And if the static typed language allows operator overloading, it could very well be that someone creates a overloading for <*> : [tuple[num], tuple[num]] -> <whatever> which would reintroduce the ambiguity. Soooooo, in the end it boils down to some explicitness - where IMHO an additional comma is pretty much no problem at all. Another option would of course be the introduction of different parentheses for tuples - but I can't find some on my keyboard. -- Regards, Diez B. Roggisch -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
