"Paul Rubin" <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes, a lot of people liked this approach, but it was rejected due to
> > gratuitous breakage. While Python 3.0 is not afraid to break backwards
> > compatibility, it tries to do so only when there's a very substantial
> > advantage. I guess enough people felt that having a shortcut for set()
> > was less important than keeping the current spelling of dict() the same.
>
> There's even a sentiment in some pythonistas to get rid of the [] and {}
> notations for lists and dicts, using list((1,2,3)) and dict((1,2),(3,4))
> for [1,2,3] and {1:2, 3:4} respectively.
YUK!
Moving in the wrong direction to bracketmania!
If you are going to use only one kind of brackets, use [] - on most keyboards,
you don't have to press the shift key - think of the numberless hours of total
time
saved by this simple reform...
It will also give Python a very distinctive "look" - unlike any other language.
- Hendrik
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
