On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:45:45 -0700 Mark Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Rob Cliffe <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I suggested a "mutable" attribute some time ago. > > This could lead to finally doing away with one of Python's FAQs: Why does > > python have lists AND tuples? They could be unified into a single type. > > Rob Cliffe. > Yeah, that would be cool. It would force (ok, *allow*) the > documenting of any non-mutable attributes (i.e. when they're mutable, > and why they're being set immutable, etc.). This also has implications for people working on making python friendlier for concurrent and parallel programming. > There an interesting question, then, should the mutable bit be on the > Object itself (the whole type) or in each instance....? There's > probably no "provable" or abstract answer to this, but rather just an > organization principle to the language.... Ok, you said "non-mutable attributes" in the first paragraph. That to me implies that the object bound to that attribute can't be changed. This is different from the attribute being bound to an immutable object, which this paragraph implies. Which do you want here? <mike -- Mike Meyer <[email protected]> http://www.mired.org/ Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information. O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org _______________________________________________ concurrency-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-sig
