Grzegorz Słodkowicz wrote: > That's just theorisation but I'd rather expect the interpreter simply > not to create a second tuple while there already is an identical one. > This could save some memory if the tuple was large (Although by the same > token comparison of large tuples can be expensive). Admittedly the empty > tuple is a special case but then 'Special cases aren't special enough to > break the rules'. > > A bit odd.
It doesn't save time if you have to check through all the existing tuples for matches ... -- Erik Max Francis && [EMAIL PROTECTED] && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis Chance favors the trained mind. -- Louis Pasteur -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list