Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > As far as it goes, yes. More generally, with any iterable x, the *x > > construct in function call will pass as positional arguments exactly > > those items which (e.g.) would be printed by the loop: > > for item in x: print x > > > > [[this applies to iterators, generators, genexps, and any other iterable > > you may care to name -- not just lists, tuples, dicts, but also sets, > > files open for reading [the items are the lines], etc, etc]]. > > But the language reference says "sequence", not "iterable"
Yes, Python's docs often say "sequence" where they in fact mean "iterable". I count (on all the .tex files under Doc/ in a current SVN tree) 854 occurrences of "sequence" versus 251 occurrences of "iterable", and I suspect the correct ratio would be rather close to the reverse:-). > If allowing f(*d) is actually the intended behavior, maybe the wording in > the reference should be updated. If not, f(*d) should still raise an error. Patches to the docs will doubtlessly be welcome (though fixing 1 out of a suspected 600 or so misuses won't make a huge difference, it's still definitely better than nothing:-). Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
