[Python-Dev] Re: Sets: elt in dict, lst.include - really begs for a PEP

[Thomas Wouters]

[ Trimming CC: line ]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 11:50:10AM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:

> Moshe, I had exactly the same reaction and exactly the same idea.  I'm
> a strong -1 on introducing new syntax for this when new methods can
> handle it in a much more readable way (IMO).

Same here. I *might* like it if iterators were given a format string (or
tuple object, or whatever) so they knew what the iterating code expected
(so something like this:

  for x,y,z in obj

would translate into 

  iterator(obj)("(x,y,z)")

or maybe just

  iterator(obj)((None,None,None))

or maybe even just

  iterator(obj)(3) # that is, number of elements

or so) but I suspect it might be too cute (and obfuscated) for Python,
especially if it was put to use to distingish between 'for x:y in obj' and
'for x,y in obj'.

-- 
Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!