tac-tics wrote: > > Diez B. Roggisch wrote: >> > Of course, another right way would be to have mutable strings in >> > Python. I understand why strings need to be immutable in order to work >> > with dicts, but is there any reason why (hypothetical) mutable strings >> > should be avoided in situations where they aren't needed as dictionary >> > keys? Python has mutable lists and immutable tuples, mutable sets and >> > immutable frozen sets, but no mutable string type. >> >> What's wrong about arrays of chars? > > Arrays of chars are dangerous. If you insist, use Python lists of > Python "chars" (strings of length 1).
Why are they more dangerous than a self-written mutable string? > If you really want a mutable string type, there's nothing in python > that keeps you from writting one yourself. You just have to be more > careful than you would be in C++, because your MutableString type would > always be passed by reference to functions, and so you'd have to be > very careful to copy it unless you want weird, unfindable bugs to crop > up in your program. I don't buy that. You are right about the dangers - but I fail to see where C++ gives you any protection from these pitfalls. And what disqualifies an array of characters in python that exists and has all the methods I can think of for a mutable string. Regards, Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
