On Dec 25, 12:39 am, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is really going to be the last time I waste any words on this
Oh hey, don't feel you actually have to justify the bullshit you're talking for my sake. > In case of python, collection PACKING (not unpacking) is signaled by a > construct that can be viewed as a type constraint. _But no one does view it that way because it isn't_. No more so than [] taking a string separated list of arguments and return a list is a type constraint. _That's it's behaviour_. We have a language construct that returns a tuple, because in the context of what tuples are in Python, that makes sense. There are _plenty_ of such constructs. You have still yet to show what adding all of this ridiculous shit to a function signature provides that coercing the resulting tuple to your own type doesn't. > So here it is again, in terms every 5 year old can understand. Id like > to do the exact same thing python is already doing. Except with a few > more, and different symbols, to enable one to express a few different > variants of behavior. Clear enough? That you're a condescending douchebag with nothing of value to contribute? Crystal. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
