On Jan 15, 2:03 pm, "Lambert, David W (S&T)" <lamber...@corning.com>
wrote:
> Overly terse. I do mean that this is illegal:
>
> isinstance(s, {str, bytes})
>
> tuples have order, immutability, and the possibility of repeat items.
In the anticipated/usual use case (the type/class names are hard-
coded):
* order is a very mild plus (you can list them in descending order of
(imagined) probability)
* immutability is not a problem
* the number of items is not likely to be so large that duplicate
entries would creep in
> A set is most reasonable in a mathematical sense.
This is true -- distinguishing carefully between "most reasonable" and
"the most reasonable" :-)
Do you actually have a use case for dynamically assembling a
collection of classes/types for use with isinstance(), or are you
propelled solely by mathematical reasonableness?
Cheers,
John
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
