Christoph Zwerschke wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Paul Rubin wrote: > >>Look at the list.count() example at the start of this thread. > >>Diagnosing it isn't hard. Curing it isn't hard. It doesn't bloat > >>Python by an order of magnitude. A suitably factored implementation > >>might handle lists and strings with the exact same code and not incur > >>any extra cost at all. That type of thing happens all the time here. > > > > I believe the language creator use the "lack of" as a way to > > prevent/discourage that kind of usage. Just like the ternary > > operator(still don't know why it is finally accepted). It is not a > > problem(not having), it is a feature(to teach you program better), so > > what cure are we talking about ? > > Sorry, but I still do not get it. Why is it a feature if I cannot count > or find items in tuples? Why is it bad program style if I do this? So > far I haven't got any reasonable explanation and I think there is no. > I have no idea, I can understand their view, not necessarily agree. And reasonable explanation is not something I usually find on this group, for issues like this.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
