Was it discussed in the PR and deemed a better way alternative? I personally prefer using[] because it's more natural to() on my keyboard but I wonder whether we really need to do mention this in the docs. It's fine to use a list right? I also think it has a nicer rendering as otherwise we have nested(.

Was it discussed in the PR and deemed a better way alternative? I personally prefer using[] because it's more natural to() on my keyboard but I wonder whether we really need to do mention this in the docs. It's fine to use a list right? I also think it has a nicer rendering as otherwise we have nested(.

It certainly isn't vastly superior, just slightly more efficient.@iritkatriel asked me to open an issue to update the docs, so I opened an issue and PR for it since there aren't many changes.

When you runrepr() on anExceptionGroup, if the original sequence was a list, then we need to create a new list from theeg.exceptions tuple, which could be expensive for a large list. This step is unnecessary for tuples as we just use the repr foreg.exceptions straight-up. So it's slightly more efficient (though of minimal effect for small groups).

Yes it could be expensive but exception handlers are usually rare paths, so performance usually aren't an issue here. Unless you have a list of millions of exception objects, it doesn't really matter IMO.

I agree it's not a significant perf impact. My point is it's inconsistent to recommend in the docs to use tuples and then have examples using [].