Python 3.0 - is this true?
roy at panix.com
Sun Nov 9 15:25:39 CET 2008
In article <6no8p6Fm8q70U1 at mid.uni-berlin.de>,
"Diez B. Roggisch" <deets at nospam.web.de> wrote:
> > Also, I thought that part of the python philosophy was to allow any
> > sort of object in a list, and to allow the same methods to work with
> > whatever was in list.
> Not really. When the usual argument about the existence (and
> justification) of lists & tuples comes along, one common distinction is
> - tuples contain arbitrary object of varying types, so they are kind
> of "records"
> - lists should contain uniform objects.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with lists of heterogenous types. Or, for
that matter, iterators which generate heterogeneous types. Here's some
perfectly reasonable examples (equally applicable to lists or iterators):
* The tokens parsed out of a file (ints, floats, identifiers, keywords,
various kinds of punctuation, etc)
* The entries in a unix directory (plain files, directories, symlinks,
special files, named sockets, etc)
* The vehicles going through a toll booth (cars, trucks, motorcycles)
I don't see any reason you shouldn't be able to build lists of those things.
More information about the Python-list