On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 02:12:41 -0700 Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> wrote: > > On 04/29/2012 02:01 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote: > > On 4/29/2012 4:41 AM, Larry Hastings wrote: > >> I'd prefer an object to a dict, but not a tuple / structseq. There's no > >> need for the members to be iterable. > > I agree with you, but there's already plenty of precedent for this. > > [...] Iteration for these isn't very useful, but structseq is the handiest > > type we have: > > The times, they are a-changin'. I've been meaning to start whacking the > things which are iterable which really shouldn't be. Like, who uses > destructuring assignment with the os.stat result anymore? Puh-leez, > that's so 1996. That really oughta be deprecated.
Some types can benefit from being hashable and having a minimal footprint (hence tuple-like). However it's not the case for get_clock_info(), since you're unlikely to have more than one instance alive in a given invokation. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
