Re: [PyX-devel] Re: [PyX-checkins] pyx/test/experimental solve.py,1.2,1.3

[Magnus L. H. <ma...@he...>]

Andre Wobst <wo...@us...>:
>
[snip]
>=20
> I'm not totally convinced, but I might need to think a bit. But I
> can't resist to answer right now (also I may change my mind after some
> thoughts): A point having two variables is a 2d-object, a point with 3
> variables is a 3d-object. And each position as a special meaning (i.e.
> x, y, z). So here we have a tuple, not a list.

Same thing, IMO. I think tuples in Python are really worthless in most
cases. The only thing they'd buy us here would be immutability. (One
could argue that that would be a good thing here, in accordance with
the Value pattern.)

But that doesn't really matter, IMO. Whether you do

  point([1, 2, 3])

or

  point((1, 2, 3))

is completely irrelevant (as long as you stay away from the
naughtiness of type checking ;). The real difference is between this
and

  point(1, 2, 3)

Even the numarray arrays use the first form, as do, really, all
sequence types, including tuples.

> (There *are* cases, where we have tuples, not lists.)

As I said, there's really no practical difference, IMO.

> In that sense I think its different from the attribute discussion
> ...

Sure. I'm just saying that the "standard" constructor for sequence
types admits a single iterable objects as its argument.

And if one stays away from type checking, one could even use future
enhancements, such as the upcoming generator comprehensions, such as:

  b =3D point(x**2 for x in a)

:)

You *could*, of course, still do

  b =3D point(*[x**2 for x in a])

of course...

> Andr=E9

--=20
Magnus Lie Hetland     "Canned Bread: The greatest thing since sliced
http://hetland.org      bread!" [from a can in Spongebob Squarepants]