Python primer - comments appreciated!

[Thorsten Kampe]

*  James J. Besemer
> Thorsten Kampe wrote:
>
>> "Python, anyone?"... Yep, this is my first one. Comments on
>> style/readability and technique/flow appreciated!
> [...]
>>        # put this in one line?
>>        true_class  = []
>>        false_class = []
> [...]
>        #### if you are thinking "true_class = false_class = []"
>        #### then it would be a BIG NO-NO.
>        #### the latter form initializes both variables to the SAME 
> (empty) list

Well, uh, ah, eh, errm, good to know, thanks!

>>                quotient_set.append([item])
>
> #### teeny tiny nit:  I prefer "quotient_set.extend( item )" to the above.

That's not the same: I'm appending a new equivalence list to the 
quotient set by making item a list and your version would append a 
list as individual items.

>>                # This somehow "inelegant", because all I want to do is:
>>                # "seq[index] = seq[index].append(item)" Suggestions?
>>
> ####  Define your set or sequence types to be a class or classes.  
> ####  You can then define [] and .append() operations
> ####  to be whatever you want (e.g., silently exclude duplicates, etc.)
>
> ####  Even the most trivial data abstractions usually benefit by being 
> made an
> ####  explicit class/object.

Well I RTFM'd and 'tutorialed' a lot, but I cannot find any concrete 
use for this OOP thing. Could you elaborate?!

> ####  if you are 'indexing' you may want to use a dictionary base type 
> instead of a list.

I think I'm not "indexing" but "hashing" over the representants, so a 
dictionary (associative array) should be the natural thing, thanks.

> ####  if you only want to test membership, instead of the 'try' you can 
> test:
>
>                  if representative in representative_class:  ....  

Well, even "if item in seq: seq.index(item)" is faster than "try: 
seq.index(item)" 


Thorsten