Verbose and flexible args and kwargs syntax

[Cameron Simpson]

On 13Dec2011 00:30, Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco at gmail.com> wrote:
| On Dec 13, 1:27 am, alex23 <wuwe... at gmail.com> wrote:
| > On Dec 13, 3:12 am, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee... at gmail.com> wrote:
| > > But to relate it to the topic of this thread: no, the syntax does not
| > > allow one to select the type of the resulting sequence. It always
| > > constructs a list.
| >
| > So by this argument, _every_ function that returns a list should take
| > an optional argument to specify an alternative form of sequence.
| >
| > What, exactly, is so onerous about coercing your list to _whatever_
| > type you want? You know, like everybody else has been.
| >
| > What does this _gain_ you other than one less line of code?
| 
| 1) Turning two lines of code into a single more readable one is
| nothing to scoff at
| 2) After-the-fact conversion is O(n), getting the view you want right
| away is O(1)

Regarding (2), it has already cost you O(n) to get there. So your O(1)
is a little ingenuous.
-- 
Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/

I'm a volunteer EMT-I on our local ambulance service; one of our Paramedics
calls squid style motorcycle accidents "ZoomSplats", as in "we had a good
ZoomSplat the other night". ;-)
        - Scott <traurig at rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com>