Sorry to belabor the point, but this is exactly what parent was saying.
> changing something like
> ("foo",
> "bar",
> "baz")
> to
> ("foo")
> actually breaks the code.
Of course it breaks the code because the first thing is a tuple and the second is a string. He's implying that the second thing shouldn't be a string. I'm saying that's nuts.
No, he's saying that the operation you perform to truncate the former to the latter is the operation you would logically expect to perform (i.e. removing the trailing comma), which makes the thing a string.
He's not actually proposing that a string be a tuple. He's just saying that a single element enclosed in parentheses doesn't work the way you'd expect it.
> changing something like > ("foo", > "bar", > "baz") > to > ("foo") > actually breaks the code.
Of course it breaks the code because the first thing is a tuple and the second is a string. He's implying that the second thing shouldn't be a string. I'm saying that's nuts.