> Speaking of which, if sets *were* to become built-ins, would the
> notation
>
> { member1, member2, member3, ... }
>
> fly as a constructor literal? I don't know enough ab out the
> parser's operations to determine how easy disambiguation from a
> dictionary constructor might be, but it's certainly a desirably
> parallel notation with mathematical sets.
That's what PEP 218 proposes, yes (it even proposes "set
comprehensions"). The parser has no problem with this, except that {}
would be ambiguous. The PEP proposes to solve that by using {-} to
write an empty set, but not everyone likes that.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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