On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 11:56 -0800, Josiah Carlson wrote: > Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > Nuff was a fairy... though I guess it depends on where you draw the > > line; should [1,2,3] be list(1,2,3)? > > Who is "Nuff"?
fairynuff... :-) > Along the lines of "not every x line function should be a builtin", "not > every builtin should have syntax". I think that sets have particular > uses, but I don't believe those uses are sufficiently varied enough to > warrant the creation of a syntax. I suggest that people take a walk > through their code. How often do you use other sequence and/or mapping > types? How many lists, tuples and dicts are there? How many sets? Ok, > now how many set literals? The absence of sets in early Python, the requirement to "import sets" when they first appeared, and the lack of a set syntax now all mean that people tend to avoid using sets and resort to lists, tuples, and "dicts of None" instead, even though they really want a set. Anywhere you see "if value in sequence:", they probably mean sequence is a set, and this code would run much faster if it really was, and might even avoid potential bugs because it would prevent duplicates... -- 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
