[Python-3000] Set literal

[Jim Jewett]

On 1/29/08, Mike Klaas <mike.klaas at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29-Jan-08, at 2:29 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:

> > Jim Jewett wrote:

> >> The majority of uses need a mutable set that starts empty.

> > Does anyone have evidence to support that assertion?

> $ pygrep '[^.a-z]set[(]' | grep -v unittest | wc
>      320    1583   24774

> Empty set():

> $ pygrep '[^.a-z]set[(][)]' | grep -v unittest | wc
>      114     478    7406

> Some of the uses in the first group could be replaced with frozenset,
> of course.  Looking at the examples, though, I would say that most of
> the uses of sets start out using a set constructed using
> comprehension or set(<iterable>).

Apparently you abstract your code better than I do.  Many of my
mutable sets could be done that way if the iterable were described
better; in practice, I just create the set as empty and add to it.

How often is that iterable a literal?  (For me, almost always, because
otherwise I usually either don't make the iterable explicit, or don't
bother turning it into a set.)

How often do you change the set again after the initial iterable is
exhausted?  (I don't, but I suspect that might be a style quirk.)

-jJ