General question about Python design goals

[Christoph Zwerschke]

Aahz wrote:
>Christoph wrote:
>>Aahz wrote:
>>>Christoph wrote:
>>>>For instance, I just wanted to use the index() method on a tuple which 
>>>>does not work. ...
>>>
>>>Because Guido believes that tuples should be primarily used as
>>>lightweight replacements for C structs.  Therefore they have minimal
>>>functionality.
>>
>>But the problem is that the tutorials and manuals give the impression 
>>that the difference between lists and tuples is only mutablity versus 
>>immutability. They don't talk about such considerations and honestly 
>>speaking even now I know that it does seem more plausible for me.
> 
> Then feel free to submit patches for the docs.

Why should I patch the docs to add things that don't seem plausible for 
me? I'd rather change the behavior to be more consistent instead 
tweaking the docs to somehow justify the inconsistent behavior.

> PS: If you want further responses from me, please follow standard Usenet
> quoting conventions (like those above).

I am tempted to answer, "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of 
Little Minds" ;-)

No honestly, it was not in bad faith. I'm just not a regular usenet user 
and believed one attribution line per post should suffice. But reading 
the conventions I agree that they make sense.

And I think it's a good analogy. Some people dislike Python's stringent 
whitespace syntax and "one obvious way" rule because it does not give 
them freedom to write programs in their individual style. But I don't 
think it's "foolish consistency" - it simply makes programs of others 
more easy to read, you can concentrate on the content and not the style. 
It's the same reason why people use quoting conventions. And BTW, I 
think that makes particularly suited for open source and XP projects.

-- Christoph