Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Nick Coghlan schrieb:
I'd like to repeat Guido's question: Why does this still need to support the tuple interface (i.e. indexed access)?
So that it remains interoperable with existing libraries that expect a tuple? Otherwise you'd be casting (and copying) every time you needed to pass it to something that used indexed access.
Can you give a few example, for libraries where this isn't already done?
I don't have any specific examples of that, no - that's why I phrased it as a question. However, another aspect that occurred to me is that inheriting from tuple has significant practical benefits in terms of speed and memory consumption, at which point it doesn't seem worthwhile to *remove* the indexing capability. I suppose you *could* write a completely new C-level record class, but given that Raymond's NamedTuple class gets good performance from a Python implementation, rewriting it in C seems like wasted effort. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org