Re: f---ing typechecking
- From: Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:26:51 +1100
James Stroud <jstroud@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I increasingly come to the decision to avoid tuples altogether
because, eventually, you end up turning them into lists anyway
I don't. I end up extracting them to separate variables.
>>> foo = (12, None, "spam")
>>> # ...
>>> # much code, perhaps passing foo around as parameter
>>> # ...
>>> (bar, baz, wibble) = foo
>>> # code using bar, baz, and/or wibble
If they are eventually extracted to lists, then it generally makes no
sense for them ever to begin as a tuple.
--
\ "I have an answering machine in my car. It says, 'I'm home now. |
`\ But leave a message and I'll call when I'm out.'" -- Steven |
_o__) Wright |
Ben Finney
.
- References:
- f---ing typechecking
- From: Sergey Dorofeev
- Re: f---ing typechecking
- From: hg
- Re: f---ing typechecking
- From: skip
- Re: f---ing typechecking
- From: James Stroud
- Re: f---ing typechecking
- From: skip
- Re: f---ing typechecking
- From: James Stroud
- f---ing typechecking
- Prev by Date: Re: reference data in a dictionary
- Next by Date: Re: Recursive calls and stack
- Previous by thread: Re: f---ing typechecking
- Next by thread: Re: f---ing typechecking
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|