Why are index() and count() only for mutable sequences?
Tim Peters
tim_one at email.msn.com
Thu Jul 8 23:24:04 EDT 1999
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Thu Jul 8 23:24:04 EDT 1999
- Previous message (by thread): Why are index() and count() only for mutable sequences?
- Next message (by thread): Why are index() and count() only for mutable sequences?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[Bob Alexander] > There is no modification of the sequence performed by these functions > -- it seems as though they could be available for all sequences. It > would certainly be useful for tuples as well as lists (strings, too, for > that matter, even though we have the more general string.find()). I don't think there's a deep reason. It was "just true" that immutable objects (sequences or otherwise) didn't have methods when Python first came out. But when complex numbers were introduced, they came with a .conjugate() method, and you can expect strings to grow methods too in 1.6 (Barry Warsaw has checked implementation code for that into the CVS tree, disabled by default for now -- it's nice!). As you say, strings have more flexible functions already, and there's reason to suspect that Guido didn't expect anyone to use tuples of more than a few elements each. why-are-tabs-8-spaces<wink>-ly y'rs - tim
- Previous message (by thread): Why are index() and count() only for mutable sequences?
- Next message (by thread): Why are index() and count() only for mutable sequences?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list