[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
> > How would you make a one-element list, which we'd currently write as [3]?
> > Would you have to say list((3,))?
>
> Yep. I don't particularly like the "mandatory trailing comma" in the
> tuple's display form, mind you, but, if it's good enough for tuples, and
> good enough for sets (how else would you make a one-element set?),
If you really want to get rid of container literals, maybe the best
way is with constructor functions whose interfaces are slightly
different from the existing type-coercion functions:
listx(1,2,3) => [1, 2, 3]
listx(3) => [3]
listx(listx(3)) => [[3]]
dictx((a,b), (c,d)) => {a:b, c:d}
setx(a,b,c) => Set((a,b,c))
listx/dictx/setx would be the display forms as well as the constructor forms.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
