On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:53 PM Sjoerd Job Postmus firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:45:11PM +0000, אלעזר wrote:
It is a real problem. People are used to write `seq == [1, 2, 3]` and it passes unnoticed (even with type checkers) that if seq changes to e.g. a tuple, it will cause subtle bugs. It is inconvenient to write `len(seq)
3 and seq == [1, 2, 3]` and people often don't notice the need to write
(I'd like to note that it makes sense for this operation to be written as
*iter1 == *lst
although it requires a significant change to the language, so a Sequence.equal function makes sense)
I think you're mistaken about the suggestion.
You are right of course. Sorry.