In article
,
Steve Howe wrote:
> The whole point is, is not supposed to be a set; a set literal would
> end with "})". As you can see, there is no such construct in the
> string.
> It's just a dict inside parentheses. Somehow, the parser seems to
> think it's a set.
>>> type({'', 1})
>>> type(
Geremy and the parser are correct - it *is* a set. It would only be a
dict if you changed the comma to a colon.
regards
Steve
On 10/24/2010 1:31 AM, Steve Howe wrote:
> Hello Geremy,
>
> The whole point is, is not supposed to be a set; a set literal would
> end with "})". As you can see, there
Ok, forget, I found the problem: bad sleeping.
Thanks.
--
Howe
howest...@gmail.com
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Steve Howe wrote:
> Hello Geremy,
>
> The whole point is, is not supposed to be a set; a set literal would
> end with "})". As you can see, there is no such construct in the
> st
Hello Geremy,
The whole point is, is not supposed to be a set; a set literal would
end with "})". As you can see, there is no such construct in the
string.
It's just a dict inside parentheses. Somehow, the parser seems to
think it's a set.
--
Howe
howest...@gmail.com
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Steve Howe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This looks like a parser bug, but it's so basic I'm in doubt. Can
> anyone confirm ?
>
import sys
sys.version
> '2.7.0+ (r27:82500, Sep 15 2010, 18:14:55) \n[GCC 4.4.5]'
({'', 1}.items())
> Traceback (most recent call l
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Steve Howe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This looks like a parser bug, but it's so basic I'm in doubt. Can
> anyone confirm ?
>
import sys
sys.version
> '2.7.0+ (r27:82500, Sep 15 2010, 18:14:55) \n[GCC 4.4.5]'
({'', 1}.items())
> Traceback (most recent call
Hello,
This looks like a parser bug, but it's so basic I'm in doubt. Can
anyone confirm ?
>>> import sys
>>> sys.version
'2.7.0+ (r27:82500, Sep 15 2010, 18:14:55) \n[GCC 4.4.5]'
>>> ({'', 1}.items())
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
AttributeError: 'set' object has no at
[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 back
+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
> - 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
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 share
the same delimiter
13 matches
Mail list logo
