Verbose and flexible args and kwargs syntax

[alex23]

On Dec 13, 3:12 am, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee... at gmail.com> wrote:
> But to relate it to the topic of this thread: no, the syntax does not
> allow one to select the type of the resulting sequence. It always
> constructs a list.

So by this argument, _every_ function that returns a list should take
an optional argument to specify an alternative form of sequence.

What, exactly, is so onerous about coercing your list to _whatever_
type you want? You know, like everybody else has been.

What does this _gain_ you other than one less line of code?