Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008 10:01 AM, Leif Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 2008 12:37 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The pipe char is ambiguous because is no direction. It was suggested and
>>> rejected last year.
>> Out of almost-pure devil's advoc
> should the repr for a set be set({a, b, c})
> instead of set([a, b, c])?
FWIW, running eval() on the repr is slower and less memory efficient with curly
braces than with the square brackets.
Also, it may be easily misread as meaning: set([frozenset([a, b, c])]). If the
latter is intended, t
On Jan 25, 2008 4:58 PM, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about also removing the {} as an empty dictionary? Then both
> dictionary and set literals will require at least one item to be valid.No
> confusion, and {} is not allowed because it's ambiguous (to users) as to
> weather it's a
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> P.S. A small side-benefit is it may put an end for interminable requests for
> a {:} or {/} notation for empty sets. There's not much need for a literal
> for a empty frozenset (use "not s" instead).
How about also removing the {} as an empty dictionary? Then bo
On Jan 25, 2008 12:52 PM, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2008 10:40 PM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 2008 5:12 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Looking over the code base, frozensets are used rarely.
> > > > So I don't think t
On Jan 25, 2008 1:31 PM, J. Cliff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm a -0.9 on this one. I really like that Python is powerful, but also a
> great pedagogical language.
>
> I don't like that whereas before you could teach someone {} creates a dict,
> but now you have to say {} creates a dic
I'm a -0.9 on this one. I really like that Python is powerful, but also
a great pedagogical language.
I don't like that whereas before you could teach someone {} creates a
dict, but now you have to say {} creates a dict, if there are colons
inside, or it's empty, but otherwise creates a frozenset.
On Jan 24, 2008 10:40 PM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 5:12 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Looking over the code base, frozensets are used rarely.
> > > So I don't think this is warranted.
> >
> > There is no shortage for perfect use cases in the f
> There are also « and », << and >> for those w/o UTF-8 support in their
> mail client. On my keyboard the characters are available under [alt gr]
> + y and x.
Not elegant. It should look pretty. Code should look the same in all
character encodings unless alternate codings for used for identifie
On Jan 25, 2008 10:01 AM, Leif Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008 12:37 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The pipe char is ambiguous because is no direction. It was suggested and
> > rejected last year.
>
> Out of almost-pure devil's advocacy, has <> been consider
On Jan 25, 2008 10:32 AM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leif Walsh wrote:
> > Out of almost-pure devil's advocacy, has <> been considered? My first
> > instinct is that it would be ambiguous with less-than/greater-than,
> > but if someone can convince me otherwise, might it work?
Leif Walsh wrote:
> Out of almost-pure devil's advocacy, has <> been considered? My first
> instinct is that it would be ambiguous with less-than/greater-than,
> but if someone can convince me otherwise, might it work? After all,
> it's the only other balanced pair of punctuation I see on my keyb
On Jan 25, 2008 10:15 AM, nathan binkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, there are too many syntactic situations where this would make the
> > grammar ambiguous or tortuous. We don't want to move beyond LL(1).
> > (Apart from parsing indentation and nested parentheses, of course --
> > which act
On Jan 25, 2008 10:01 AM, Leif Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008 12:37 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The pipe char is ambiguous because is no direction. It was suggested and
> > rejected last year.
>
> Out of almost-pure devil's advocacy, has <> been considere
On Jan 25, 2008 12:37 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The pipe char is ambiguous because is no direction. It was suggested and
> rejected last year.
Out of almost-pure devil's advocacy, has <> been considered? My first
instinct is that it would be ambiguous with less-than/greate
On Jan 25, 2008 7:47 AM, Gisle Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008, at 20:32, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > Some folks thought it would be cute to be able to write incomplete
> > code like this:
> >
> > class C:
> > def meth(self): ...
> > ...
> >
> > and have it be syntactically c
Dj Gilcrease wrote:
> This probably will not go over well, but why not use the pipe
> character to define a frozenset?
>
> if urltxt in |'html', 'xml', 'php'|:
The pipe char is ambiguous because is no direction. It was suggested and
rejected last year.
Christian
On Jan 24, 2008 8:12 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope it isn't too confusing that {1: 1} creates a *mutable* dict
> while {1} creates an *immutable* frozenset. I still find this slightly
> inelegant. But the practicality of being able to treat set literals as
> compile-time
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> I think it would be more useful for the {e1, e2, e3} literal to be a
> frozenset instead of a set.
+1 from me
Christian
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Mark Summerfield wrote:
> On 2008-01-25, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> For the record, I'm thinking Raymond has won this argument fair and
>> square, and I'm withdrawing my opposition.
>>
>> I hope it isn't too confusing that {1: 1} creates a *mutable* dict
>> while {1} creates an *immutable* frozense
On Jan 24, 2008, at 20:32, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Some folks thought it would be cute to be able to write incomplete
> code like this:
>
> class C:
> def meth(self): ...
> ...
>
> and have it be syntactically correct.
I think it would be been nice if "..." raised an NotYetImplemented
exc
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008, Mark Summerfield wrote:
>
> Python 3 is going to break compatibility anyway. I thought one of the
> purposes of having a new major release was to allow for such changes.
>
> In 2 or 3 years from now Python 3 will be "Python" for most people, and
> confusing inconsistencies wo
> I hope it isn't too confusing that {1: 1} creates a *mutable* dict
> while {1} creates an *immutable* frozenset. I still find this slightly
> inelegant. But the practicality of being able to treat set literals as
> compile-time constants wins me over.
Another point in favor of Raymond's suggest
Mark Summerfield wrote:
> Python 3 is going to break compatibility anyway. I thought one of the
> purposes of having a new major release was to allow for such changes.
Please stop the discussion! Guido already voted against it. I assume
most of the remaining core developers agree with me that thre
Dnia 25-01-2008, Pt o godzinie 07:18 +, Mark Summerfield pisze:
> If you're going to make the change, why not make things consistent:
How often do you need the empty frozenset (which will stay as such),
compared to an empty dict (which will probably get filled later)?
The real inconsistency
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:29:49AM +, Mark Summerfield wrote:
> In 2 or 3 years from now Python 3 will be "Python" for most people
It depends on how much it breaks. If Python 3 breaks too much people may
find it is a completely new language and decide to switch to another
language instead o
On 2008-01-25, Steven Bethard wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008 12:18 AM, Mark Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2008-01-25, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > For the record, I'm thinking Raymond has won this argument fair and
> > > square, and I'm withdrawing my opposition.
> > >
> > > I hope it is
27 matches
Mail list logo
