Author lemburg
Recipients brian.curtin, eric.smith, lemburg
Date 2010-07-08.22:25:33
SpamBayes Score 0.0285042
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
Brian Curtin wrote:
> Brian Curtin <> added the comment:
> The previously mentioned comments about backwards incompatibility with the number of items in the sequence are now a problem, since structseq now inherits from tuple. It seems that n_in_sequence gets ignored and we have a 9 item tuple.

But that's not a problem with this ticket, is it. The previous use
case has to be restored (after all, this was the main reason for
adding structseq years ago).

Someone goofed when making the said change to structseq. Is there a
ticket open for this ? Here's the change:

After some digging: Looks like it's being dealt with on
Date User Action Args
2010-07-08 22:25:40lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, eric.smith, brian.curtin
2010-07-08 22:25:34lemburglinkissue7766 messages
2010-07-08 22:25:33lemburgcreate