On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:53 PM Sjoerd Job Postmus <sjoerd...@sjoerdjob.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:45:11PM +0000, אלעזר wrote: > > It is a real problem. People are used to write `seq == [1, 2, 3]` and it > > passes unnoticed (even with type checkers) that if seq changes to e.g. a > > tuple, it will cause subtle bugs. It is inconvenient to write `len(seq) > == > > 3 and seq == [1, 2, 3]` and people often don't notice the need to write > it. > > > > (I'd like to note that it makes sense for this operation to be written as > > > > *iter1 == *lst > > > > although it requires a significant change to the language, so a > > Sequence.equal function makes sense) > > > > Elazar > > > > I think you're mistaken about the suggestion. You are right of course. Sorry. Elazar
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
