On Dec 13, 1:27 am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 13, 3:12 am, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > But to relate it to the topic of this thread: no, the syntax does not > > allow one to select the type of the resulting sequence. It always > > constructs a list. > > So by this argument, _every_ function that returns a list should take > an optional argument to specify an alternative form of sequence. > > What, exactly, is so onerous about coercing your list to _whatever_ > type you want? You know, like everybody else has been. > > What does this _gain_ you other than one less line of code?
1) Turning two lines of code into a single more readable one is nothing to scoff at 2) After-the-fact conversion is O(n), getting the view you want right away is O(1) Not every function needs this flexibility; many specialized functions could not care less. But collection unpacking is quite a general thing, and for the record; slicing a tuple returns a tuple. Would you rather have that return a list too? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
