Re: Discuss changing the behaviour of append()
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Jun 12, 2014
- 4578 views
There is nothing amazing that "this fails".
I believe that English is not your first language, so I'd just like to point out that at no time have I said that I was "amazed" or even surprised by the current behaviour of append().
Manual reads: Syntax: s2 = append(s1, x)
You had to append to the sequence, not to an atom.
Your logic was erroneous, you thought that S[n] can not be an atom.
What does "amaze" me is your attempts to read my mind. I did not think that S[n] can not be an atom. I fully realized that an arbitrary sequence element could be an atom. What actually happened was that I forgot that append() had the restriction about it's first parameter, because it seemed natural to me that append() would work just like the concatenation operator.
if your function works after correction with append() and (much better) with &.
And this is the point I'm making ... the function does not become better (in my opinion) using the concatenation operator.
But if you wanna another append(), it is fully another story.
But I don't want another function that works almost the same as append(). I want append() to work using the same rationale as concatenate does.
So to summarize, you have not understood me or my posts at all. For this, I'm sorry.
