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>,
 garabik-news-2002-02 at (Radovan Garabik) wrote:

>Raymond Hettinger <vze4rx4y at> wrote:
>> * Is the support for sets of sets necessary for your work
>>   and, if so, then is the implementation sufficiently
>>   powerful?
>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.

Same here.

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.

-- Russell

More information about the Python-list mailing list