Python 3: dict & dict.keys()

Chris Angelico rosuav at gmail.com
Thu Jul 25 17:07:55 CEST 2013


On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> [ snip lengthy explanation of sets ]
> The union operator ought to
> be symmetrical, a ∪ b should be identical to b ∪ a, but isn't. Another
> leaky abstraction.

Right. I agree with all your theory, which is fine and good. If we had
a "set of real numbers", then each one would be both equal to and
indistinguishable from any other representation of itself. But Python
doesn't work with real numbers. It works with ints and floats and
Fractions and Decimals and Guido-knows-what. (Sorry, I don't normally
talk like that, but the expression begged to be said. :) )

So since Python already lets its abstraction leak a bit for
usefulness, why not retain the exact same leak when working with a
dict? A set is a dict with no values... a dict is a set with extra
payload. They're given very similar literal notation; if they were
meant to be more distinct, why was no alternative symbol used?

(I love how a random side comment can become a topic of its own.)

ChrisA



More information about the Python-list mailing list