So it appears the "problem" this is intended to solve is "Python isn't Haskell."
But Haskell exists, and this is a non-problem looking for a solution. On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 4:39 PM wfdc <w...@protonmail.com> wrote: > Don't yell. > > You just effectively re-implemented Christopher Barker's solution (which > was also present in the StackOverflow thread), with the downside that it > fails the immutability criterion. > > Saying "just be careful not to mutate the original datastructure" isn't a > solution. There's a reason we have immutable types: To *enforce* > immutability. Otherwise, why aren't you proposing getting rid of the tuple > type entirely? > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Friday, March 11th, 2022 at 4:29 PM, David Mertz, Ph.D. < > david.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 4:16 PM wfdc via Python-ideas < > python-ideas@python.org> wrote: > >> > why haven't you used a list >> 2. I don't want to modify the original sequence. >> > > There's a really easy solution for you that will even be more perfomant. > > Use a list and DON'T modify the original! > > This is ABSOLUTELY an XY-problem.... which fact was difficult to wrestle > out of you. > > >>> stuff1 = [a, b, c, d] > >>> stuff2 = stuff1[:] > >>> stuff2[2] = e > > > >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/Q2UKBLSDXZ3DVTPHHCINA7XPLMF3XCEH/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
