curly-brace-aphobic?

[Ben Catanzariti]

Would this be to visually seperate lists and tuples creating less ambiguity?

"Grant Griffin" <not.this at seebelow.org> wrote in message
news:3A74EBD6.3C87FD15 at seebelow.org...
> Hi Gang,
>
> I'm sure this has been asked a thousand times, but I haven't seen it
> asked lately (or ever <wink>).
>
> Why does Python use square braces ([]) instead of curly braces ({}) when
> accessing dictionaries?
>
> This strange inconsistency in Python seems strangely inconsistent with
> its otherwise very consistent application of consistency: since we use
> curly braces to _create_ dictionaries, why not use them to _access_
> dictionaries?  (Or better yet, if the underlying design principle is to
> access things using a different syntax than what we used to create them,
> why not use curly braces to access lists?  <wink>)
>
> Anyway, although curly braces are perhaps slightly harder to type than
> square braces, this is one example (maybe the only one) where I find
> Perl code more readable: I appreciate the mnemonic effect curly braces
> have in reminding me that the thing being accessed is a dictionary*.
>
> or-is-python-just-"curly-brace-aphobic?-{wink}-ly y'rs,
>
> =g2
> * perl_terminology = { 'dictionary': 'hash' }
>
> -------------
>
> Addendum:  Now that I've written all that, I just had a flash.  Is it so
> that dictionary code can be sortta polymorphic wrt list code?
>
> doesn't-sound-like-a-very-good-reason-to-me...-ly y'rs,
>
> =g3
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> Grant R. Griffin                                       g2 at dspguru.com
> Publisher of dspGuru                           http://www.dspguru.com
> Iowegian International Corporation            http://www.iowegian.com