On Dec 19, 3:23 am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Evan Driscoll <edrisc...@wisc.edu> wrote: > > My problem with it is that it in some sense is forcing me to make a > > decision I don't care about. Yes, what we have now is less flexible, but > > I have *never* said "man, I wish this *args parameter were a list > > instead of a tuple". > > And if you _did_, then one of the first lines in your function would > be: > > args = list(args) > > Which is obvious to everyone, doesn't modify existing behaviour, > doesn't force everyone without a fetish for change to add unnecessary > cruft to their function signature...
Its obvious you end up with a list (assuming args is an iterable); knowing what args was to begin with suffers from the same problems. > Except, OMG, list() is RETURNING A LIST, which is an OBVIOUS type > constraint. I propose that: > > args = @set list(args) > > Will coerce args into a list and then give me a set in return. ? What does that have to do with collection packing/unpacking? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
