On Dec 27, 1:52 am, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > extended collection unpacking, as in 'head,*tail=sequence', is quite a > > rare construct indeed, and here I very strongly feel a more explicit > > syntax is preferrable. > > You may be right, but... > > > ... if collection packing/unpacking would be > > presented as a more general construct from the start, > > 'head,tail::tuple=sequence' would be hard to miss. > > ... it doesn't really justify a _change_. When a language is in its > infancy and the only code written in it is on the designers' own > computers, these sorts of debates can be tipped by relatively small > differences - is it more readable, is it quick enough to type, etc. > But once a language reaches a level of maturity, changes need to > overwhelm the "but it's a change" hurdle - breaking existing code is > majorly dangerous, and keeping two distinct ways of doing something > means you get the worst of both worlds. > > We can argue till the cows come home as to which way would be better, > _had Python started with it_. I don't think there's anything like > enough difference to justify the breakage/duplication.
That I agree with; I think it is a questionable idea to introduce this in a new python 3 version. But I consider it a reasonable change for a 'python 4', or whatever the next major version change will be called. Writing a code-conversion tool to convert from *args to args::tuple would be quite easy indeed. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
