terminological obscurity

[Arthur]

>So in quoteth Guido from the same thread:
>
>    GvR> I always think of the type of a list as "list of T" while I
>    GvR> think of a tuple's type as "tuple of length N with items of
>    GvR> types T1, T2, T3, ..., TN".  So [1, 2] and [1, 2, 3] are both
>    GvR> "list of int" (and "list of Number" and "list of Object", of
>    GvR> course) while ("hello", 42) is a "2-tuple with items str and
>    GvR> int" and (42, "hello", 3.14) is a "3-tuple with items int,
>    GvR> str, float".
>
>He sort of stacks the cards by making his tuples of hetereogenous
>type, and his list easily described as a list of T.

And of course by making his tuples of the same data type and his lists
example let's say say more challenging, he would have thereby
implicitly accepted the challenge of defending the wroding of his
edict, it all its subtlety.

He chose not to, big time.

The fact that others have accepted that challenge is welcome.

That they choose to do so explicitly on his behalf, is - to me -
peculiar.


Art