Mutable objects inside tuples - good or bad?

[Rustom Mody]

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:40:58 PM UTC+5:45, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> 
> You can choose to define mutability that way, but in many contexts
> you'll find that definition not very useful.
> 
> c is such that you could have another variable d, where the following
> interpreter session fragment is easily possible:
> 
> 
> >>> c == d
> True
> >>> foo(c)
> >>> c == d
> False

Its called referential transparency (or rather the lack of it)
And that is why it (Johns question) is not a good idea.

In general worshipping overzealously at the altar of RT produces functional
programming. To the non-zealots this has the characteristic of 
"Throw out baby with bathwater"

On the other hand imperative programming is a source of more problems than
people realize:
http://blog.languager.org/2012/11/imperative-programming-lessons-not.html