[Python-ideas] More useful slices

[Todd]

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Rob Cliffe <rob.cliffe at btinternet.com>
wrote:

>
> On 02/02/2015 11:19, Todd wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Todd <toddrjen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > First, it wouldn't be a replacement.  The existing range syntax would
>> still
>> > exist.
>> >
>> > But the reason it is beneficial is the same reason we have [a, b, c] for
>> > list, {a:1, b:2, c:3} for dicts, {a, b, c} for sets, and (a, b, c) for
>> > tuples.
>
>   Well, we have to have *some* syntax for literal lists, dicts etc.
> But we already have range, so there is no compelling need to add new
> syntax.
>

Why do we need literals at all?  They are just syntactic sugar.  Python
went a long time without a set literal.


>
> Having said that, I would have a sneaking admiration for a really concise
> syntax.
> Perhaps if we had "Python without colons", we could write
>     for i in 1 : 10
>     for i in 1 : 10 : 2
>
>
Part of my goal was to avoid any ambiguity with any existing syntax.  Since
we do have colons in for loops, I felt that some sort of grouping (either
[], {}, or ()) was necessary to avoid ambiguity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20150202/8d95626c/attachment-0001.html>