[Python-3000] sets in P3K?

[Barry Warsaw]

On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 15:48 -0700, Aahz wrote:

> My opinion: if we were designing Python from scratch right now, we might
> well consider having only set literals and not dict literals.  However,
> I don't think we can have both set and dict literals, and I think that
> removing dict literals (or list literals) counts as gratuitous breakage.

Agreed.  The current status quo seems fine.

Losing listcomps won't be a big problem because they can be automatically
> fixed and they aren't much loss.

Totally half-baked way-pre-morning-coffee thought: isn't

[f(x) for x in seq]

just another way to spell

list(genexp) where genexp == f(x) for x in eq?

So, if there are no list comps any more, but list literal notation could
take a genexp, doesn't that give us today's syntactic convenience with
tomorrow's consistence world view?

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 309 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/attachments/20060426/354b28ba/attachment.pgp