On 31 Jul, 21:31, Masklinn <maskl...@masklinn.net> wrote: > It's intuitive if you come to Python knowing other languages with > tuples (which are mostly functional, and in which tuples are *never* > sequences/iterables). At the end of the day, and if Guido's intention > truly was what Raymond says, implementing tuples as immutable sequence > was a mistake. And the documentation is to blame as well: in it, > tuples are clearly described as a *sequence* type, not a *structure* > type.
That depends on the readers' preconceptions: Only when the reader have knowledge of C structs, Pascal records, or Java classes should this matter. The naïve reader will not have preconceptions about a difference between "structure types" and "sequence types". A more advanced C programmer will also know that a struct is a form of a sequence in C: you can e.g. memcpy any struct to a char array. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
