On Mon, Apr 11, 2016, at 04:01, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> What tuple that is passed to FunctionType.__call__?
>
> Where is the tuple in these examples?
>
>
> py> from types import FunctionType
> py> FunctionType.__call__(lambda x: x+1, 23)
> 24
> py> FunctionType.__call__(lambda x, y: str(x)+str(
On Monday 11 April 2016 15:27, Random832 wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016, at 00:08, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Should we say that the / and - operators therefore create tuples? I don't
>> think so.
>
> But I am talking about the tuple that is passed to FunctionType.__call__
> at runtime, not a tuple
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016, at 00:08, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Should we say that the / and - operators therefore create tuples? I don't
> think so.
But I am talking about the tuple that is passed to FunctionType.__call__
at runtime, not a tuple created within some parser stage.
--
https://mail.python.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:51 pm, Random832 wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 22:32, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> def func(arg1, arg2, arg3):
>> pass
>>
>> func(1, 2, 3)
>>
>> does not create a tuple (1, 2, 3) anywhere in its execution.
>
> Well, the second argument to PyObject_Call and function_c
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:41 am, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Chris Angelico writes:
> >
> >> Fair enough. Let's instead say "commas create tuples", which is true
> >> in all cases except the singleton empty tuple. Is that near enough
> >> that we can avoid the detail?
> >
>
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Random832 wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 22:32, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> def func(arg1, arg2, arg3):
>> pass
>>
>> func(1, 2, 3)
>>
>> does not create a tuple (1, 2, 3) anywhere in its execution.
>
> Well, the second argument to PyObject_Call and function_
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:51 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
>>> I'd rather be correct on the one-element case and wrong on the empty
>>> than the other way around.
>>
>> To say “commas create tuples” is to say an unobjectionably true
>> statement ab
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 22:32, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> def func(arg1, arg2, arg3):
> pass
>
> func(1, 2, 3)
>
> does not create a tuple (1, 2, 3) anywhere in its execution.
Well, the second argument to PyObject_Call and function_call is a tuple,
which had to come from somewhere. That may
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:41 am, Ben Finney wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
>> Fair enough. Let's instead say "commas create tuples", which is true
>> in all cases except the singleton empty tuple. Is that near enough
>> that we can avoid the detail?
>
> It's a fine thing to say, because it's si
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> I'd rather be correct on the one-element case and wrong on the empty
>> than the other way around.
>
> To say “commas create tuples” is to say an unobjectionably true
> statement about Python syntax. It remains true as one continues to learn
>
Chris Angelico writes:
> Fair enough. Let's instead say "commas create tuples", which is true
> in all cases except the singleton empty tuple. Is that near enough
> that we can avoid the detail?
It's a fine thing to say, because it's simply true. Commas create
tuples.
There are some tuples that
On 2016-04-11 10:45, Ben Finney wrote:
> Also, there is another obvious way to create an empty tuple: call
> the ‘tuple’ type directly:
>
> >>> foo = tuple()
> >>> print(type(foo), len(foo))
> 0
But here the parens make the tuple too:
>>> foo = tuple
>>> print(type(foo))
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 05:45 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> So, let's please stop saying “parens don't create a tuple”. They do, and
> because of that I've stopped saying that false over-simplification.
I stand by "parens don't make a tuple", with the caveat that I should
have mentioned the empty tuple
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Ben Finney
>> wrote:
>> > So the expanation that remains true when you examine it is: People
>> > wanted a literal syntax to create a zero-length tuple. A pair of parens
>> > is t
Chris Angelico writes:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
> > So the expanation that remains true when you examine it is: People
> > wanted a literal syntax to create a zero-length tuple. A pair of parens
> > is that literal syntax, and it's the parens that create the (empt
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> So the expanation that remains true when you examine it is: People
> wanted a literal syntax to create a zero-length tuple. A pair of parens
> is that literal syntax, and it's the parens that create the (empty)
> tuple.
But parens do NOT creat
Stephen Hansen writes:
> […] parens don't make tuples, commas do.
Chris Angelico writes:
> The thing you're confused at is that it's not the parentheses that
> create a tuple. Parentheses merely group.
MRAB writes:
> As has been said already, it's the comma that makes the tuple. The
> par
17 matches
Mail list logo
