From collections import counter c = counte. The first, [:], is creating a slice (normally often used for getting just part of a list), which happens to contain the entire list, and thus is effectively a copy of the list The second, list(), is using the actual list type constructor to create a new list which has contents equal to the first list. The first way works for a list or a string The second way only works for a list, because slice assignment isn't allowed for strings Other than that i think the only difference is speed
It looks like it's a little faster the first way Try it yourself with timeit.timeit () or preferably timeit.repeat (). If your list of lists comes from a nested list comprehension, the problem can be solved more simply/directly by fixing the comprehension Please see how can i get a flat result from a list comprehension instead of a nested list? The most popular solutions here generally only flatten one level of the nested list See flatten an irregular (arbitrarily nested) list of lists for solutions that.
If it was public and someone cast it to list again, where was the difference? List is an interface, you cannot instantiate an interface, because interface is a convention, what methods should have your classes In order to instantiate, you need some realizations (implementations) of that interface. Don't use quotes on the command line 1 don't use type=list, as it will return a list of lists this happens because under the hood argparse uses the value of type to coerce each individual given argument you your chosen type, not the aggregate of all arguments You can use type=int (or whatever) to get a list of ints (or whatever) Learn how to properly create nested html lists with examples and best practices, as discussed on stack overflow.
You must be sure that at runtime the list contains nothing but customer objects Critics say that such casting indicates something wrong with your code You should be able to tweak your type declarations to avoid it But java generics is too complicated, and it is not perfect Sometimes you just don't know if there is a pretty solution to satisfy the compiler.
OPEN