On 24/10/2009, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
There's a different proposed meaning for `set.get` that's been discussed on python-dev before: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-April/088128.html> That one I've had cause for before and no clean and fast way of writing, this one I've always just done the for/break thing. Martin _______________________________________________ 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
