Py2.3: Feedback on Sets
Russell E. Owen
owen at nojunk.invalid
Wed Aug 13 18:49:08 CEST 2003
In article <bhcp3q$10918l$1 at ID-89407.news.uni-berlin.de>,
garabik-news-2002-02 at kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk (Radovan Garabik) wrote:
>Raymond Hettinger <vze4rx4y at verizon.net> wrote:
>> * Is the support for sets of sets necessary for your work
>> and, if so, then is the implementation sufficiently
>So far my code used dictionaries with values set to None,
>I expect that I will use sets soon, it will be more logical
>and the code more readable.
I don't rely on sets heavily (I do have a few implemented as
dictionaries with value=None) and am not yet ready to make my users
upgrade to Python 2.3.
I suspect the upgrade issue will significantly slow the incorporation of
sets and the other new modules, but that over time they're likely to
become quite popular. I am certainly looking forward to using sets and
I think it'd speed the adoption of new modules if they were explicitly
written to be compatible with one previous generation of Python (and
documented as such) so users could manually include them with their code
until the current generation of Python had a bit more time to be adopted.
I'm not saying this should be a rule, only suggesting it as a useful
goal. Presumably it'd be easy with some modules and not worth the work
in some cases.
More information about the Python-list