In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > 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.?
How could list(t) work, if for x in t didn't? For me, conceptually, if an object can't be accessed sequentially, then it can't be mapped to a sequence. Anyway, it seems to me that in the end this is about that balance between practicality and purity. Maybe it's more like tuples have a primary intended purpose, and some support for other applications. Not white, but not pure black either. Donn Cave, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
