Thanks, that’s an interesting proposal, although I’d leave arbitrary lists as the default.
Then we could add definitions for members, while allowing the number of accepted members to “overflow” the number of those that have been already defined.
Would that make sense? Or should we restrict lists to only defined members once one or more member have been defined? Opinions @jcelerier? (Or others ? @jln?)
Maybe here ? https://github.com/OSSIA/score/issues/356
I remember pretty clearly us discuting this at length once and concluding that there were often cases where lists would be changing at runtime though (e.g. first [float, int], then [int, float, string] or stuff like this).
Yes, sure we want to keep an arbitrary format (just a list of things) while it’s also useful to have some more structured lists / tuples
Maybe that should be split in two different types?
Like lists and tuples?
(Maybe there are better names to find to differentiate them, though)
Tuple would be fairly well understood by computer scientists as something with fixed size and types.
Is there another name for that?
If not, then I guess the ordinary Joe will be happy to learn a new name for a new thing, as long as he really needs it.