[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
> The other possible meaning for {1,2,3} would be {1:None,2:None,3:None},
> but that is usually meant to be a set anyway (done with a dict).
>
> So what is this: {1:2, 3, 4 } (apart from "nearly useless") ?
Syntax error; you'll have to decide whether you
"Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about overloading curly braces for set literals, as in
> >
> aSet = {1,2,3}
> >
> > - It is the standard mathematic set notation.
> > - There is no ambiguity or backwards compatibility problem.
> > - Sets and dicts are in many
+1 from me.
The other possible meaning for {1,2,3} would be {1:None,2:None,3:None},
but that is usually meant to be a set anyway (done with a dict).
So what is this: {1:2, 3, 4 } (apart from "nearly useless") ?
hmmm, thinking a bit more about this, it seems
you can build a set from a dict's keys
George Sakkis wrote:
> How about overloading curly braces for set literals, as in
>
aSet = {1,2,3}
>
> - It is the standard mathematic set notation.
> - There is no ambiguity or backwards compatibility problem.
> - Sets and dicts are in many respects similar data structures, so why
> not sh
> - There is no ambiguity or backwards compatibility problem.
...at least if it wasn't for the empty set.. hmm...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
