Pythonification of the asterisk-based collection packing/unpacking syntax

[alex23]

On Dec 25, 12:39 am, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee... at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is really going to be the last time I waste any words on this

Oh hey, don't feel you actually have to justify the bullshit you're
talking for my sake.

> In case of python, collection PACKING (not unpacking) is signaled by a
> construct that can be viewed as a type constraint.

_But no one does view it that way because it isn't_. No more so than
[] taking a string separated list of arguments and return a list is a
type constraint. _That's it's behaviour_.

We have a language construct that returns a tuple, because in the
context of what tuples are in Python, that makes sense. There are
_plenty_ of such constructs. You have still yet to show what adding
all of this ridiculous shit to a function signature provides that
coercing the resulting tuple to your own type doesn't.

> So here it is again, in terms every 5 year old can understand. Id like
> to do the exact same thing python is already doing. Except with a few
> more, and different symbols, to enable one to express a few different
> variants of behavior. Clear enough?

That you're a condescending douchebag with nothing of value to
contribute?

Crystal.