On 1/28/08, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please don't reopen this. There are good reasons for 'set' to be the > default set type and 'frozenset' to appear like a poor cousin. For > one, their naming. This was all reasoned out long, long ago, in Python > 2.3 with the sets module.
In general, mutable sets are more useful. I don't think that applies to the more specific use case of already having members available when you create the set. To rephrase: The majority of uses need a mutable set that starts empty. The majority of uses that start non-empty do not require mutability. In fairness, most of the non-empty cases don't require hashability either, so a mutable set remains an acceptable substitute. The question is whether an explicit set( ) around it to indicate mutability (and the loss of hashability) is desirable. (Today, we need the longer frozenset to indicate the opposite, but I'll agree that we don't need it often.) -jJ _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
