[Python-Dev] Re: Sets: elt in dict, lst.include
Guido van Rossum
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:28:44 -0500
> Not really. Available time is finite, and this isn't at the top of the list
> of things I'd like to see (resuming the discussion of generators +
> coroutines + iteration protocol comes to mind first).
OK, get going on that one then!
> >> Cool! Can we resist adding
> >> if key:value in dict
> >> for "parallelism"? (I know I can ...)
> > That's easy to resist because, unlike ``for key:value in dict'', it's
> > not unambiguous:
> if (key:value) in dict
> is. Just trying to help whoever *does* want the PEP <wink>.
OK, I'll pronounce -1 on this one. It looks ugly to me -- too
reminiscent of C's if (...) required parentheses. Also it suggests
that (key:value) is a new tuple notation that might be useful in other
contexts -- which it's not.
> > ...
> > I'm certainly more comfortable with just ``for key in dict'' than with
> > the whole slow of extensions using colons.
> What about just the
> for key:value in dict
> for index:value in sequence
I'm not against these -- I'd say +0.5.
> The degenerate forms (omitting x or y or both in x:y) are
> mechanical variations so are likely to get raised.
For those, +0.2.
> > But, again, that's for the PEP to fight over.
> PEPs are easier if you Pronounce on things you hate early so that those can
> get recorded in the "BDFL Pronouncements" section without further ado.
At your service -- see above.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)