Ben Finney wrote: > Which then raises the question “what part of the set does it get?”, > which the function signature does nothing to answer. I'm proposing that > a no-parameters ‘set.get’ is needlessly confusing to think about.
The fact that set.get() is just set.pop() without removing the result from the set seems perfectly straightforward. > Since the use case is so specific, I would expect the name to be > specific too, to better match the use case. The use case is no more specific than set.pop(). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
