See https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+lang:python+%5C%5B%5Cs*:%5Cs*%28i%7Cj%7Ck%7Cind%7Cindex%29%5Cs*%5C%5D%5Cs*%5C%2B%5Cs*%5C%28.*%5C%2C%5C%29%5Cs*%5C%2B%5Cs*%5B%5Cw%5C.%5D%2B%5C%5B%5Cs*%28i%7Cj%7Ck%7Cind%7Cindex%29%5Cs*%5C%2B%5Cs*1%5Cs*:%5Cs*%5C%5D&patternType=regexp
and https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+lang:python+%3D%5Cs*list%5C%28%5B%5Cw%5C.%5D%2B%5C%29%5Cs*%5Cw%2B%5C%5B%5Cw%2B%5C%5D%5Cs*%3D%5Cs*%5B%5Cw%5C.%5D%2B%5Cs*%5B%5Cw%5C.%5D%2B%5Cs*%3D%5Cs*tuple%5C%28%5Cw%2B%5C%29&patternType=regexp ------- Original Message ------- On Sunday, March 13th, 2022 at 1:55 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephenjturnb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Game theorist here. > > wfdc via Python-ideas writes: > > > Do you see why it's useful to have immutability? > > Sure, it's potentially hashable. But I can't recall ever finding that > > useful in working with matrix games (loosely speaking, I mean games > > with a finite set of players, each with a finite strategy space). > > I've used (subclasses of) tuple for strategy profiles, but I always > > wanted more additional attributes than just 'replace' (thus > > subclasses), and I call it "deviate" (usually) or "disturbance" (when > > computing perfect or proper equilibria; of course those implicate the > > mixed extension, which complicates thing, and also they involve > > changing all the non-interior strategies simultaneously). Really > > curious to hear enough about your use case to understand why adding > > this method to tuple is so much preferable to using a list (which is > > what I do when calculating best replies in an abstract matrix game, eg > > toy examples for introductory classes) or some class based on dict, > > list, or tuple (when the game is a model of some social phenomenon and > > I want to access various summaries of performance "at" a profile). > > > > This could cause confusion because str.replace() has a completely > > > > different API. > > > We're talking about tuples here, not strings. > > You are, and you have every right to. I want to talk about immutable > > sequences, and that's fine, too. > > The point is that str and tuples are both immutable sequences, and > > both "replace at index" and "replace value" make sense for all > > sequences. Of course mutable sequences already have the usual > > indexing and slicing APIs for replacement, so this would be immutables > > only. BTW, bytes.replace has the same signature as str.replace. > > It's true that namedtuple has a replace method with a different > > signature, but that signature relates to namedtuple as a (general) > > mapping, not as a sequence (which, although it's a special case of > > mapping, is sufficiently important to have two builtin > > implementations). > > > Saying that a method's API differs for a completely different type, > > > especially when such a difference would be expected given the > > > difference in types, is not a valid objection. > > True. I wouldn't expect the replace method on ints to be the same as > > the replace method on tuples. I would expect the replace method on > > immutable sequences to be consistent across subtypes. I don't yet see > > a reason why "replace value" wouldn't be at least as useful "replace > > at index". And in fact "replace value" is plausible for list, as > > well, with that signature. > > Based on the precedent set by other immutable sequences, I'm firmly -1 > > on the name "replace" for "replace at". I'm -1 on adding it to tuple > > with any name, but I could be convinced otherwise based on systematic > > evidence that it's broadly useful, such as a survey of the stdlib. > > Steve _______________________________________________ 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/IJ2NBULRFTVCFQWU2ZE6KC5MWWB3ZYOM/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
