Unpack python tuple with [ ]'s [duplicate]

No, those are all exactly equivalent. One way to look at this empirically is to use the dis dissasembler:

>>> import dis>>> dis.dis("a, b, c = (1, 2, 3)")  1           0 LOAD_CONST               0 ((1, 2, 3))              2 UNPACK_SEQUENCE          3              4 STORE_NAME               0 (a)              6 STORE_NAME               1 (b)              8 STORE_NAME               2 (c)             10 LOAD_CONST               1 (None)             12 RETURN_VALUE>>> dis.dis("(a, b, c) = (1, 2, 3)")  1           0 LOAD_CONST               0 ((1, 2, 3))              2 UNPACK_SEQUENCE          3              4 STORE_NAME               0 (a)              6 STORE_NAME               1 (b)              8 STORE_NAME               2 (c)             10 LOAD_CONST               1 (None)             12 RETURN_VALUE>>> dis.dis("[a, b, c] = (1, 2, 3)")  1           0 LOAD_CONST               0 ((1, 2, 3))              2 UNPACK_SEQUENCE          3              4 STORE_NAME               0 (a)              6 STORE_NAME               1 (b)              8 STORE_NAME               2 (c)             10 LOAD_CONST               1 (None)             12 RETURN_VALUE>>>

From the formal language specification, this is detailed here. This is part of the "target list", A relevant quote:

Assignment of an object to a target list, optionally enclosed inparentheses or square brackets, is recursively defined asfollows....

Using godbolt and selecting Python as the language then entering the three lines of code, you can see they all have the same bytecode:

  1           0 LOAD_CONST               5 ((1, 2, 3))              2 UNPACK_SEQUENCE          3              4 STORE_NAME               0 (a)              6 STORE_NAME               1 (b)              8 STORE_NAME               2 (c)  2          10 LOAD_CONST               6 ((1, 2, 3))             12 UNPACK_SEQUENCE          3             14 STORE_NAME               0 (a)             16 STORE_NAME               1 (b)             18 STORE_NAME               2 (c)  3          20 LOAD_CONST               7 ((1, 2, 3))             22 UNPACK_SEQUENCE          3             24 STORE_NAME               0 (a)             26 STORE_NAME               1 (b)             28 STORE_NAME               2 (c)

So, they are the same, just different syntaxes.

I have checked the execution time and number of cycles using Linux perf tools. All 3 programs are showing the same execution time, so I think there are not any extra costs.