terminological obscurity

[Michael Geary]

> > Arthur wrote:
> > > Can't it be said, in helping to distinguish a Python list from
> > > the standard collections in, say, Java and C++ - that among
> > > its most important attributes is the ease with which one can
> > > work with a list as a collection of objects of *heterogenous*
> > > type. "Type" here being used in the sense that programmers
> > > generally use the word.

>  Grant Edwards wrote:
> > I think the fact that Python lists can be heterogogenous is one
> > of the most brilliantly useful things in the language, but
> > apparently we're not supposed to use lists like that.

David Eppstein wrote:
> It's not heterogeneity of type you're supposed to avoid, it's
> heterogeneity of purpose.  That is, you should be intending to
> treat each cell of the list similarly.

Of course, if you do have an application where it's useful to use a list of
heterogeneous types for heterogeneous purposes, no harm whatsoever will come
of it.

Guido may wish you didn't do that, but I have a feeling he's busy with other
things and isn't really that concerned about it. Besides, you don't have to
tell him.

-Mike