[Python-3000] sets in P3K?

[Terry Reedy]

"Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:e8a0972d0604251049x29a39d61l690608b1c005ce2b at mail.gmail.com...
> On 4/25/06, Josiah Carlson <jcarlson at uci.edu> wrote:
>   ...
>> If list comprehensions didn't come first (and even though list
>> comprehensions came first), I would argue that there should only be
>> generator expressions.  If one wants a list comprehension, one should
>> use list(genexp).  Obviously it would have clear implications of the
>> non-starting of {genexp} for set, frozenset, and/or dict comprehensions.
>
> I entirely agree, as, it appears to me from his posts to this thread,
> does Raymond; however, Guido thinks our shared preference is atypical,
> as he posted on this thread 24 hours ago:
> """
> On 4/24/06, Alex Martelli <aleaxit at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I dislike that as much as I dislike [<genexp>] as a shorthand for
>> list(<genexp>), but I have no trouble admitting that if we have the
>> [...] form, it's consistent to have the {...} one too.
>
> I think you're atypical in that dislike.
> """
When Guido posted that, I replied in support of more syntax.  While I don't 
share your dislike, Raymond and Josiah have somewhat neutralized my 
support.  I can see Raymond's point that we now have too many types to 
support all with syntax.  And I can see an argument that the appropriate 
response to more types is a compensating decrease in syntax (as in dropping 
[xx] as a synonym for list(xx)) rather than adding more.

Terry Jan Reedy