<html>

 <head>

  <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"

   http-equiv="Content-Type">

 </head>

 <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">

  <br>

  On 04/29/2012 02:01 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:

  <blockquote cite="mid:4F9D0386.1030402@trueblade.com" type="cite">

   <pre wrap="">On 4/29/2012 4:41 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:</pre>

   <blockquote type="cite">

    <pre wrap="">I'd prefer an object to a dict, but not a tuple / structseq. There's no

need for the members to be iterable.

</pre>

   </blockquote>

   <pre wrap="">

I agree with you, but there's already plenty of precedent for this.

[...] Iteration for these isn't very useful, but structseq is the handiest

type we have:

</pre>

  </blockquote>

  <br>

  The times, they are a-changin'.&nbsp; I've been meaning to start whacking

  the things which are iterable which really shouldn't be.&nbsp; Like, who

  uses destructuring assignment with the os.stat result anymore?&nbsp;

  Puh-leez, that's so 1996.&nbsp; That really oughta be deprecated.<br>

  <br>

  Anyway, it'd be swell if we could stop adding new ones.&nbsp; Maybe we

  need a clone of structseq that removes iterability?&nbsp; (I was

  thinking, we could hack structseq so it didn't behave iterably if

  n_in_sequence was 0.&nbsp; But, no, it inherits from tuple, such

  shenanigans are a bad idea.)<br>

  <br>

  <br>

  <i>/arry</i><br>

  <br>

  p.s. MvL gets credit for the original observation, and the

  suggestion of deprecating iterability.&nbsp; As usual I'm standing on

  somebody else's shoulders.<br>

 </body>

</html>