[Python-ideas] More useful slices

[Rob Cliffe]

On 02/02/2015 12:38, Todd wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Rob Cliffe <rob.cliffe at btinternet.com 
> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto:rosuav at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Todd <toddrjen at gmail.com
>>         <mailto: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.
Well, if you'd rather write
     L = list()
     L.add('foo')
     L.add('bar')
     L.add('baz')
than
     L = ['foo', 'bar', 'baz']
then good luck to you.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20150202/47a7ee46/attachment.html>