Ka-Ping Yee wrote: > After Eric asked about sets at dinner (e.g. having 'x in dict' > do 'dict.has_key(x)') i wondered about what it would take to > support sets. [huge snip] While the syntax is really, really nice, of all the things in kjbuckets, sets are the only one that can be (almost) transparently faked. It strikes me the really valuable stuff there is in things like set*dict, finding closures, transposing... I know that Guido is not very comfortable with some of the choices Aaron made (or perhaps with defending those choices to the algebraicly impaired), but it seems a shame to just do the easy one and ignore the really powerful algebra that goes with it. - Gordon
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4