[Greg Stein]
> Context was dropped here. I had stated earlier (in my original note)
> that {3, 5, 7} is syntactically ambiguous. It *can* be resolved, but
> it would truly be messy. Borrowing Tim's Guido-channeling-headgear,
> I foresee that Guido wouldn't want to implement sets if it creates
> this kind of ambiguity and hackery in the parser/compiler.
Hey, give that back! I was going to channel Guido to decide what I should
eat tonight, but without his ersatz guidance ended up eating a can of rancid
Y2K-paranoia sardines. Ooh, the belches.
Ah, good, it's back. Ask next time, OK? Guido won't want to implement sets
regardless of syntax: the pressure to make builtin types maximally
efficient for all possible (reasonable & otherwise) applications is
relentless & unproductively contentious, and "the best" representation for
sets doesn't exist. My (not so) secret hope is that a combination of
interfaces and optional static typing in Python 3000 will enable motivated &
intelligent users to pick the most appropriate concrete implementations of
such "one size barely fits anyone" data structures, based on their knowledge
of their apps' specific needs.
the-spirits-have-departed-and-now-i-must-rest-ly y'rs - tim
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