Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.016 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.97; '*S*': 0.00; 'python.': 0.02; 'interpreter': 0.05; 'though:': 0.07; 'contexts': 0.09; 'latter': 0.09; 'objects,': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; 'python': 0.11; 'ahead,': 0.16; 'from:addr:rosuav': 0.16; 'from:name:chris angelico': 0.16; 'hashable': 0.16; 'hashable,': 0.16; 'immutable,': 0.16; 'mutability': 0.16; 'mutable': 0.16; 'objects.': 0.16; 'tuple': 0.16; 'typeerror:': 0.16; 'unhashable': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'code.': 0.18; 'variable': 0.18; '>>>': 0.22; 'programming': 0.22; 'putting': 0.22; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; "i've": 0.25; 'define': 0.26; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'am,': 0.29; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; '"",': 0.31; '>>>>': 0.31; 'agreed.': 0.31; 'consisting': 0.31; 'equality': 0.31; 'gary': 0.31; 'ok.': 0.31; 'tuples': 0.31; 'file': 0.32; 'another': 0.32; '(most': 0.33; 'not.': 0.33; 'totally': 0.33; 'could': 0.34; "can't": 0.35; 'common': 0.35; 'problem.': 0.35; 'definition': 0.35; 'objects': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'false': 0.36; 'done': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'two': 0.37; 'easily': 0.37; 'problems': 0.38; 'question,': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'recent': 0.39; 'even': 0.60; 'break': 0.61; 'no.': 0.61; 'john': 0.61; "you're": 0.61; 'back': 0.62; "you'll": 0.62; 'kind': 0.63; 'such': 0.63; 'choose': 0.64; 'here': 0.66; 'believe': 0.68; 'frequently': 0.68; 'useful.': 0.68; 'caused': 0.69; 'legal': 0.71; 'compare:': 0.84; 'confusion.': 0.84; 'fragment': 0.84; 'subject:good': 0.84; 'problems?': 0.91; 'to:none': 0.92 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=iXQ8I5tCpktxrHmQGgucaWYCgzq1mqeKg4CWcqlxRGI=; b=IQwq0SaAleTznq33J9ayPd/Z7blfLoPT48KXhrYYzs3HiCrAZbitahDlxZtdX7JFlT Hm9yR+6rHukgYFTsvfGe46xV5j5uz7gBabNY/X9LV1gWRpLNSNVMWFNRGhU79ARqc0PI KydzmQnsBURvWmqlLxhli1afIHuWSpz5RxnvBXhKDeFzwv/zkO2Ujqoqsak61CWFMguA Z5wEf5OVNE/8WYLv0Ig0SvuxxioVG3502KFy+DT76w/RjQir7lHDidsTKTJbSyoRdE9l qWNOqD4sG+YpEBHPAMlVkMSrrfHOMJDpyA9NlGYZz5lOjNRh4WtLRJ4GxXW7rXjNQBFV Pi0w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.218.3 with SMTP id pc3mr24537946pbc.71.1396772737030; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 01:25:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <89df32f9-c8ae-4b7b-bfc4-01c574aabcae@googlegroups.com> <53410185.6050304@islandtraining.com> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:25:36 +1000 Subject: Re: Mutable objects inside tuples - good or bad? From: Chris Angelico Cc: "comp.lang.python" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 60 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1396772745 news.xs4all.nl 2854 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:45826 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:69757 On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote: > On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Gary Herron > wrote: >> On 04/05/2014 11:53 PM, John Ladasky wrote: >>> >>> I find this programming pattern to be useful... but can it cause problems? >> >> No. >> >> What kind of problems are you considering? It won't break Python. It's >> perfectly legal code. > > Agreed. Putting mutable objects inside tuples is common and totally OK. There are many programming habits that can cause problems, even though they won't break Python and are legal code. :) >> The tuple c is still immutable, consisting of two specific objects, and (as >> always) without regard to the specifics or contents of those two objects. > > 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 What you're looking at here is hashability, not mutability. Compare: >>> a = (1,2,3) >>> hash(a) 2528502973977326415 >>> b = ([1],[2],[3]) >>> hash(b) Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in TypeError: unhashable type: 'list' Both tuples are immutable, but the former is hashable because all its members are hashable, while the latter is not. You can't trust that equality with b is constant: >>> c = ([1],[2],[3]) >>> b == c True >>> b[2][0]=4 >>> b == c False Going back to the original question, though: I do not believe that putting mutable objects inside tuples is a problem. I've done it frequently myself, and it's never caused confusion. So go right ahead, do it if it makes sense! ChrisA