Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> writes: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:51:18 -0700, namekuseijin wrote: > >> On Apr 26, 1:31 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- >> cybersource.com.au> wrote: >>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:01:10 -0700, Carl Banks wrote: >>> > That's because Python lists aren't lists. >>> >>> Surely you meant to say that Lisp lists aren't lists? >>> >>> It-all-depends-on-how-you-define-lists-ly y'rs, >> >> Yeah, the List Processing language got it all wrong by not going with >> arrays like Python... > > Well, Lisp was invented in 1958, before anyone knew how to program *wink*.
And 50+ years of development hasn't taught them anything. :p Guess you don't know anything about programming unless you're new... > Seriously though, linked lists are not the only sort of list. That was my > point: first define what is a list, and then we can debate what is or > isn't a list. Even within linked lists, there are various different > types, all with their own strengths and weaknesses: singly-linked lists, > doubly-linked lists, circular lists, open lists, xor-lists, lists with or > without sentinels, lists with internal and external storage, unrolled > linked lists, and combinations of all of the above. And any sufficiently powerful language would allow the programmer to adapt to any type they needed. ;) Interesting topic though. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
