[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
> > Well, [...] notation for regular lists (as opposed to list
> > comprehensions) is also unnecessary since we could use "list((a,b,c))".
>
> Indeed, there's no reason list couldn't accept multiple arguments as an
> alternative to one sequence argument, just like min and max. This would
> make list(a, b, c) work just perfectly.
What should the output of "print list(1,2,3)" be? Is there a really
good reason to make it different from the input syntax?
What should list(list(1,2,3)) be? Should "list" really work
completely differently depending on whether it has a single arg or
multiple args?
How would you make a one-element list, which we'd currently write as [3]?
Would you have to say list((3,))?
> I see no credibly simple and readable alternative to {a:b, c:d}
> dictionary display syntax, for example; dict(((a,b),(c,d))) just
> wouldn't cut it, because of the "parentheses overload" (double
> entendre intended).
dict(a=b,c=d)
I don't really see why keyword arg names have to be identifiers
either. foo(3=4) can pass a **kwargs containing {3:4}.
> But list has no such problem, and there's really no added value of
> clarity and readability in [a,b,c] vs list(a,b,c).
That's subjective at best. Even Scheme doesn't make you use
extra keywords to write something as fundamental as a list. ;-)
> So the only reason they may "suggest lists" is that you're used to
> that display form in Python, but there's no real reason to HAVE a
> display form for lists at all, IMHO.
Well, what's supposed to happen when you print a list then?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
