Message65096
| Author | gvanrossum |
|---|---|
| Recipients | belopolsky, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, twouters |
| Date | 2008-04-07.19:07:50 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.44020233 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <ca471dc20804071207g19bd4caco9f756f69861e1ce3@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1207594815.42.0.17940161805.issue2292@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> Do I understand correctly that non-starred arguments are packed into
> intermediate tuples/sets in the presence of starred arguments so that
> {a,b,*c,d,e} is equivalent to {*{a,b},*c,*{d,e}}? This should not be a
> problem for tuples, but with sets, it means that {a,b,c} may behave
> subtly differently from {a,*(b,c)}.
Can you show an example where this would be different? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008-04-07 19:07:52 | gvanrossum | set | spambayes_score: 0.440202 -> 0.44020233 recipients: + gvanrossum, twouters, georg.brandl, belopolsky |
| 2008-04-07 19:07:51 | gvanrossum | link | issue2292 messages |
| 2008-04-07 19:07:50 | gvanrossum | create | |