"George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Feb 28, 10:45 pm, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Tuples are intended for use as heterogeneous data structures [...]
> > Lists are intended for use as homogeneous sequences [...]
>
> Nice, that's a good summary of the straw man arguments about the
> "true"
On Mar 1, 5:02 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't know Ruby, but I think it allows such purposes with a freezing
> function.
In ruby all objects can be frozen (freeze is a method on Object, from
which all other objects derive), not just Arrays (Arrays == lists in
python; ruby has no built-in c
George Sakkis, I agree with the things you say.
Sometimes you may have a sequence of uniform data with unknown len (so
its index doesn't have semantic meaning). You may want to use it as
dict key, so you probably use a tuple meant as just an immutable list.
I don't know Ruby, but I think it allows
Ben Finney wrote:
> Bjoern Schliessmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Explain.
>
> Well, since you ask so politely :-)
I admit, sometimes I'm a little short-spoken ;)
>> I know tuples as immutable lists ...
>
> That's a common misconception.
> [...]
Thanks for pointers, there's more to it than I su
On Feb 28, 10:45 pm, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Bjoern Schliessmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I know tuples as immutable lists ...
>
> That's a common misconception.
And this catch phrase, "that's a common misconception", is a common
aping of the BDFL's take on this. As severa
Bjoern Schliessmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > A tuple implies a meaning associated with each position in the
> > sequence (like a record with a positional meaning for each field),
> > a list implies the opposite (a sequence with order but not meaning
> > associated with
