Ka-Ping Yee <ping@lfw.org>:
> The only change that needs to be made to support sets of immutable
> elements is to provide "in" on dictionaries. The rest is then all
> quite natural:
>
> dict[key] = 1
> if key in dict: ...
> for key in dict: ...
Independently of implementation issues about sets, I think this is a
damn fine idea. +1.
> (Then we can also get rid of the ugly has_key method.)
>
> For those that need mutable set elements badly enough to sacrifice
> a little speed, we can add two methods to lists:
>
> lst.include(elt) # same as - if elt not in lst: lst.append(elt)
> lst.exclude(elt) # same as - while elt in lst: lst.remove(elt)
+1 on the concept, -0 on the names.
--
<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand
and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally
destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of
protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their
oppression.
-- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93
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