On 11/06/2012 09:32 AM, Prasad, Ramit wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Andrew Robinson
[snip]
See if you can find *any* python program where people desired the
multiplication to have the die effect that changing an object in one of the
sub lists -- changes all the objects in the other sub lists.
I'm sure you're not going to find it -- and even if you do, it's going to be
1 program in 1000's.
Per the last thread where we discussed extremely rare scenarios,
shouldn't you be rounding "1 in 1000s" up to 20%? ;-)
:D -- Ian -- also consider that I *am* willing to use extra memory.
Not everything can be shrunk to nothing and still remain functional. :)
So, it isn't *all* about *micro* optimization -- it's also about
psychology and flexibility.
Actually, I would be surprised if it was even 1 in 1000.
Of course, consistency makes it easier to learn and *remember*.
I value that far more than a minor quirk that is unlikely to
bother me now that I know of it. Well, at least not as long as
I do not forget my morning coffee/tea :)
But, having it copy lists -- when the only purpose of multiplication is
for lists;
is only a minor quirk as well.
~Ramit
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
