On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 12:04 +0000, Donovan Baarda wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 13:55 -0500, Greg Wilson wrote: [...] > Personally I'd like this. currently the "set(...)" syntax makes sets > feel tacked on compared to tuples, lists, dicts, and strings which have > nice built in syntax support. Many people don't realise they are there > because of this. [...] > Frozensets are to sets what tuples are to lists. It would be nice if > there was another type of bracket that could be used for frozenset... > something like ':1,2,3:'... yuk... I dunno.
One possible bracket option for frozenset would be "<1,2,3>" which I initially rejected because of the possible syntactic clash with the < and > operators... however, there may be a way this could work... dunno. The other thing that keeps nagging me is set, frozenset, tuple, and list all overlap in functionality to fairly significant degrees. Sometimes it feels like just implementation or application differences... could a list that is never modified be optimised under the hood as a tuple? Could the immutability constraint of tuples be just acquired by a list when it is used as a key? Could a set simply be a list with unique values? etc. -- Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/ _______________________________________________ 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
