Toby Dickenson wrote: > On Wednesday 26 April 2006 09:03, Talin wrote: > > >>In my experience dict literals are far more useful than set literals. >>In fact, I don't think I've ever made a set literal. The only >>syntactical short cut that I would find useful for a set would >>be "new empty set", for which I think "set()" is probably short >>enough already. > > > I quite often write.... > > if state in (case1,case2,case3): > > as a shorter form of.... > > if state==case1 or state==case2 or state==case3:
Yes, this is what I do; for small static sets inlined into source code lists or tuples are slightly more convenient, and so I'd never use a set in that situation without a set literal. I don't know if this points one way or the other, but that sets are only built up out of sequences is a byproduct of the (lack of) syntax, which makes people use lists for sets; it's not that literal sets aren't useful. OTOH, lists and tuples are a perfectly workable alternative to sets, so maybe it doesn't matter much. -- Ian Bicking / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://blog.ianbicking.org _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
