On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 11, 2015 5:06 AM, "Steven D'Aprano" > <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> >> Yes, I agree that Python's behaviour here is better than the alternative. >> Having "except ()" catch nothing is consistent with the behaviour with >> other tuples, so I'm okay with that. But it still surprised me :-) > > There's another alternative that I haven't seen suggested yet. An empty > tuple could be considered an indication of a programming error and raise a > chained ValueError.
Not really a lot of point. Just as with isinstance, an empty tuple simply matches nothing. Why go to the effort of rejecting it? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
