On Feb 16, 12:29 pm, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > > Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Why not? They seem intuitive to me. I would find it weird if you > >> couldn't have 0-tuple, and even weirder if you couldn't have a > >> 1-tuple. Maybe my brain has been warped by too much C++ code. > > > The idea is that a 2-tuple (of numbers, say) is a pair of numbers, a > > 3-tuple is three numbers, and a 1-tuple is one number. That would > > mean a number and a 1-tuple of numbers are the same thing, not > > separate types. > > No, that doesn't follow. A set with one element is not the same thing > as that element, a sequence of one element is not the same thing as that > element, and a tuple with one element is not the same thing as that element.
Probably the analogue of tuples in human language would be like this: A: What ice-cream flavour do you have? B: "Vanilla", "Chocolate", and "Strawberry" If, for example, he only have Vanilla: A: What ice-cream flavour do you have? B: "Vanilla" This way of thinking makes 1-tuple the same as the element itself. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list