On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:03:22PM -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > The only case that looks slightly less than optimal is: > > set((1, 2, 3, 4, 5)) > > But I'm not sure that it warrants a special syntax just to get rid of the > extra ().
In any case I don't think it's possible to differentiate between the current calling convention and the 'parenless' one reliably, eg.: S = set([]) There is no way to tell if that is a set containing an empty list created using the parenless syntax, or an empty set, as is created with the current calling convention. -- DISOBEY, v.t. To celebrate with an appropriate ceremony the maturity of a command. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com