RetroSearch Browse

Sat Oct 24 11:12:26 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-October/093266.html

On 24/10/2009, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>> Which then raises the question “what part of the set does it get?”,
>> which the function signature does nothing to answer. I'm proposing that
>> a no-parameters ‘set.get’ is needlessly confusing to think about.
>
> The fact that set.get() is just set.pop() without removing the result
> from the set seems perfectly straightforward.

There's a different proposed meaning for `set.get` that's been
discussed on python-dev before:

<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-April/088128.html>

That one I've had cause for before and no clean and fast way of
writing, this one I've always just done the for/break thing.

Martin

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-October/093266.html below:

[Python-Dev] Retrieve an arbitrary element from a set without removing it