RetroSearch Browse

Thu Feb 2 01:36:24 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/060325.html

On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:03:22PM -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote:

> The only case that looks slightly less than optimal is:
> 
>     set((1, 2, 3, 4, 5))
> 
> But I'm not sure that it warrants a special syntax just to get rid of the 
> extra ().

In any case I don't think it's possible to differentiate between the
current calling convention and the 'parenless' one reliably, eg.:

    S = set([])

There is no way to tell if that is a set containing an empty list
created using the parenless syntax, or an empty set, as is created with
the current calling convention.

-- 
DISOBEY, v.t.  To celebrate with an appropriate ceremony the maturity
of a command.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/060325.html below:

[Python-Dev] syntactic support for sets