Multi-dimensional list initialization
oscar.j.benjamin at gmail.com
Thu Nov 8 00:06:27 CET 2012
On 7 November 2012 22:16, Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 November 2012 14:00, Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7 November 2012 13:39, Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws at gmail.com>
>> > On 7 November 2012 11:11, Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> A more modest addition for the limited case described in this thread
>> >> could
>> >> be to use exponentiation:
>> >> >>>  ** (2, 3)
>> >> [[0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0]]
>> Exponentiation is expected to be asymmetric and is currently unused so
>> there is no ambiguity. The problem is if someone has already
>> subclassed list and added an exponentiation method.
> How is that a problem? They just wont get the functionality.
This is absolutely contrived but:
Library A defines a subclass of list that adds an exponentiation
operator thinking that it's okay to still use these objects as lists.
Library B has an API that expects a list and tries to use the list
copy-exponentiation on its input. A user passes a list type object
from library A into library B and hopefully gets an error but possibly
gets a subtle bug that is hard to track down.
It doesn't sound plausible to me but at least in principle there is a
backward compatibility problem.
> That said, losing:
>  * (2, 3) ==  * [2, 3]
> would mean losing duck-typing in general. *Thus*, I fully agree with your
> choice of exponentiation.
Also there's no reason why tuples couldn't have the same
exponentiation operator (although for them it would be no different
from repeated multiplication).
More information about the Python-list