Eric Snow <[email protected]> added the comment:
FWIW, if folks *are* checking for tuple (and I'd love to know why) then I'd
recommend that they not. :) A more Pythonic (and arguably generally better)
approach would be to stick tightly to what data you need and take advantage of
duck-typing. When possible, try attribute access first if you expect that
(e.g. namedtuple or struct seq). Otherwise try use unpacking.
For example:
```
try:
x, y = ret.x, ret.y
except AttributeError:
pass
else:
...
```
```
try:
x, y, _ = ret
except TypeError:
pass
except ValueError:
pass
else:
...
```
Either way is easier to follow than code that relies on type (and length)
checking. They also have the advantage of allowing arbitrary types that fit
(duck-typing).
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue35914>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
