Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2007-05-31, Warren Stringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> How is it more expressive? In the context you're concerned >>> with, c[:] is the exactly same thing as c. You seem to be >>> worried about saving keystrokes, yet you use c[:] instead of c. >>> >>> It's like having an integer variable i and using ((i+0)*1) >>> instead of i. >> Nope, different. >> >> c[:] holds many behaviors that change dynamically. > > I've absolutely no clue what that sentence means. If c[:] does > behave differently than c, then somebody's done something > seriously weird and probably needs to be slapped around for > felonious overriding. > >> So c[:]() -- or the more recent go(c)() -- executes all those >> behaviors. > > Still no clue. > >> This is very useful for many performers. > > What are "performers"? > >> The real world example that I'm working one is a collaborative >> visual music performance. So c can contain wrapped MIDI events >> or sequencer behaviors. c may get passed to a scheduler to >> execute those events, or c may get passed to a pickler to >> persist the performance. > > I still don't see how c[:] is any different from c. > It isn't. The OP is projecting a wish for a function call on a list to be interpreted as a call on each member of the list with the same arguments. The all-members slice notation is a complete red herring.
It would require a pretty fundamental re-think to give such a construct sensible and consistent semantics, I think. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden ------------------ Asciimercial --------------------- Get on the web: Blog, lens and tag your way to fame!! holdenweb.blogspot.com squidoo.com/pythonology tagged items: del.icio.us/steve.holden/python All these services currently offer free registration! -------------- Thank You for Reading ---------------- -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
