John Machin wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The following program does not work if you uncomment #lis = > > ["xmms2"] + list(args) > > > > Evidently Python is opting for the nullary constructor list() as > > opposed to the other one which takes a sequence. But no newcomer would know > > this. > > Are you using "the nullary constructor list()" to mean "the 0-argument > function list() that appears later in the script", and "the other one > which takes a sequence" to mean the builtin function list()"???
No, I'm talking about listing 2 here: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-python4/index.html which states: "If you look closely at the description for the list class in Listing 2, you'll see that two different constructors are provided. One takes no arguments, and the other takes a sequence class." and I figured that since the lower bound on arguments to *args could zero, that Python was default to the nullary constructor even before the function got its args. paranoia will do these things to you. > > > And the Python docs dont give a good example of dealing with > > taking a sequence of args and converting it to a list. > > You have produced 2 perfectly good examples yourself. What's your > point? I just mean that this: http://docs.python.org/tut/node6.html#SECTION006730000000000000000 does not use list() at all. > Here's a tip: when you get into a pickle like that, try running > pychecker and/or pylint over your code. Here's what pychecker has to > say: > > metaperllist.py:4: Invalid arguments to (list), got 1, expected 0 > metaperllist.py:10: (list) shadows builtin Great suggestion. I had not heard of those. Thanks. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
