In article <pan.2009.06.09.03.18...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au>,
>
>
>But practicality beats purity -- there are many scenarios where we make
>compromises in our meaning in order to get correct, efficient code. E.g.
>we use floats, despite them being a poor substitute for the abstract Real
>numbers we mean.
>
>In addition, using a tuple or a list in this context:
>
> if e.message.code in (25401,25402,25408):
>
>is so idiomatic, that using a set in it's place would be distracting.
>Rather that efficiently communicating the programmer's intention, it
>would raise in my mind the question "that's strange, why are they using a
>set there instead of a tuple?".
As a newby I'm really expecting a set here. The only reason my mind
goes in the direction of 3 items is that it makes no sense in
combination with ``in''. That makes this idiom one that should be killed.
"
point1 = (0,1,0)
point2 = (1,0,0)
point3 = (0,0,1)
for i in (point1,point2, point3):
....
" ???
I don't think so.
At least I would do
"
for i in [point1,point2,point3]:
statements
"
But I greatly prefer a set
"
for i in {point1,point2,point3}:
statements
"
Because a set is unorderded, this would convey to the
the compiler that it may evaluate the three statements concurrently.
For a list I expect the guarantee that the statements are
evaluated in order.
For a tuple I don't know what to expect. That alone is sufficient
reason not to use it here.
[Yes I know { } doesn't denote a set. I tried it. I don't
know how to denote a set ... ]
>--
>Steven
Groetjes Albert.
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
alb...@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
