Alex Martelli wrote: > Do YOU have any good reason why > sets should print out as set(...) and lists should NOT print out as > list(...)? Is 'list' somehow "deeper" than 'set', to deserve a special > display-form syntax which 'set' doesn't get? Or are you enshrining a > historical accident to the level of an erroneously assumed principle?
(I haven't been following this thread much, so I can't tell if you're actually arguing for this change, or that you are just playing devil's advocate...) I would have liked to say that lists are a fundamental data type, much more so than a set... but in reality that seems to be a matter of taste and priorities. Pascal, for example, has a set literal, but no list literal; in fact, it doesn't even have a built-in list type. -- Hans Nowak http://zephyrfalcon.org/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
