tuples, index method, Python's design

[Antoon Pardon]

On 2007-04-10, Carsten Haese <carsten at uniqsys.com> wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2007 07:31:13 GMT, Antoon Pardon wrote
>> On 2007-04-06, Carsten Haese <carsten at uniqsys.com> wrote:
>> > If you have a use case for tuple.index, please show it to me, and I'll
>> > show you what you should be using instead of a tuple.
>> 
>> No wonder no convincing use cases for tuples have shown up. You just
>> defined use cases of tuples as unconvincing.
>
> It's not a definition, it's an observation. I'm simply saying that all use
> cases I've seen for tuple.index could be written in a clearer fashion by using
> something else. Please prove me wrong by supplying a use case of tuple.index
> that can not be improved by rewriting.

No it is a defintion because it states this can be done for every
possible case, even cases you have no idea about. 

> Note that I have proved elsewhere on this thread that any real use case for
> tuple.index will involve an operation to explicitly use an index different
> from the one obtained by the call to tuple.index(). I'd like to hear your
> opinion on this.

And what relevance would such a proof have?

>> My personal opinion is that lack of use cases are used too much as an
>> excuse.  Limiting the development of your language to use cases makes
>> your language less consistent and so makes your language less easy to
>> learn.
>
> That is your opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that
> adding features that don't have any uses just weigh the language down
> unnecessarily, and they distract programmers from finding the best solution to
> their problem.

Adding the index method to tuples is not adding a feature. It is
removing a limitation. Writing an index function in python that
works with whatever sequence is dead easy. So if the python
core implementation only works with a specific sequence that
is putting on unnecessary limitations.

>> Of course it also limits the language to what the developers can 
>> think off.
>
> Initially, yes, but if enough use cases exist for a feature that the
> developers didn't think of, it will be implemented.

Which means your language will not be that usefull for a number of
things until you have frustrated enough people.

-- 
Antoon Pardon