On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 15:48 -0700, Aahz wrote: > My opinion: if we were designing Python from scratch right now, we might > well consider having only set literals and not dict literals. However, > I don't think we can have both set and dict literals, and I think that > removing dict literals (or list literals) counts as gratuitous breakage.
Agreed. The current status quo seems fine. Losing listcomps won't be a big problem because they can be automatically > fixed and they aren't much loss. Totally half-baked way-pre-morning-coffee thought: isn't [f(x) for x in seq] just another way to spell list(genexp) where genexp == f(x) for x in eq? So, if there are no list comps any more, but list literal notation could take a genexp, doesn't that give us today's syntactic convenience with tomorrow's consistence world view? -Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
