On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 10:04:37 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > Ok now rewrite that para above with > > s/tuple/numbers like 3 or 666/ > > So I put '3' on the ram and grind it to finest powder. > > Have all trinities (of religious or secular variety) disappeared? > > 666 gone has the devil been banished from God's (or Steven's) universe? > > If you write down your phone number and give it to a girl you like, > and she burns that piece of paper, do you no longer have a phone > number? No, but she certainly doesn't have your phone number any more. > There's a difference between destroying a representation and > destroying the original entity. But Steven's point wasn't about how > easy/hard it is to destroy something; it was about a tuple's > immutability NOT being a prevention of its destruction, and therefore > it's not that sense of the word in which they're immutable. Similarly, > you could destroy a document on which God's laws are written (in the > original dictionary sense; if you don't want to believe in immutable > laws of a Deity, you can substitute in a law of physics - for > instance, the law that two objects with mass exert a force of > attraction on each other due to gravity), and it wouldn't destroy the > law itself. > > ChrisA
Recent thread on python ideas https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-June/034177.html Since "python's immutable" ≠ "really immutable", we now need a "really immutable" -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
