Mike Meyer wrote: > I get all that, I really do. I would phrase it as "a tuple is a set of > attributes that happen to be named by integers." count doesn't make > sense on the attributes of an object - so it doesn't make sense on a > tuple. index doesn't make sense on the attributes of an object - so it > doesn't make sense on a tuple. A loop over the attributes of an object > doesn't make sense - so it doesn't make sense on a tuple. > > So why the $*@& (please excuse my Perl) does "for x in 1, 2, 3" work? > > Seriously. Why doesn't this have to be phrased as "for x in list((1, > 2, 3))", just like you have to write list((1, 2, 3)).count(1), etc.? > I don't know what you use tuple for, but I do need to loop over attributes of an object(be it tuple or dict or even set), though no need for count(), index(), not even on list, so far.
I think why people may ask for .count() and .index() for tuple is that if I am writing a generic function that receive such a thing, I don't need to do a type check or try/except block, should the caller tries to be smart and use tuple instead of list(say for optimization reason). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
