(To be clear, I'm saying David Mertz's proposal fails the immutability
criterion, not Christopher Barker's.)
------- Original Message -------
On Friday, March 11th, 2022 at 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/KJ3NTNIRWXHECCVA6BP3BEG644B7WMKD/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
