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
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
