Message 65096 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	gvanrossum
Recipients	belopolsky, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, twouters
Date	2008-04-07.19:07:50
SpamBayes Score	0.44020233
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<ca471dc20804071207g19bd4caco9f756f69861e1ce3@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to	<1207594815.42.0.17940161805.issue2292@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>

Content
> Do I understand correctly that non-starred arguments are packed into > intermediate tuples/sets in the presence of starred arguments so that > {a,b,c,d,e} is equivalent to {{a,b},c,{d,e}}? This should not be a > problem for tuples, but with sets, it means that {a,b,c} may behave > subtly differently from {a,*(b,c)}. Can you show an example where this would be different?

>  Do I understand correctly that non-starred arguments are packed into
>  intermediate tuples/sets in the presence of starred arguments so that
>  {a,b,*c,d,e} is equivalent to {*{a,b},*c,*{d,e}}? This should not be a
>  problem for tuples, but with sets, it means that {a,b,c} may behave
>  subtly differently from {a,*(b,c)}.

Can you show an example where this would be different?

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2008-04-07 19:07:52	gvanrossum	set	spambayes_score: 0.440202 -> 0.44020233 recipients: + gvanrossum, twouters, georg.brandl, belopolsky
2008-04-07 19:07:51	gvanrossum	link	issue2292 messages
2008-04-07 19:07:50	gvanrossum	create