Edward Loper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that a significant motivation for people that propose set > literals is that the following is just plain ugly: > > s = set([1,2,3]) > > It seems much more natural to write: > > s = set(1, 2, 3)
I agree. > However, it is fairly common to want to build a set from a collection, > an iterator, or a genexp. With the current notation, all three of these > are easy. But with this "more natural" notation, they're no longer > possible without resorting to varargs (which would create an unnecessary > imtermediary tuple). Right now you are manually creating an intermediate list or tuple to pass to set, so this wouldn't seem to be a significant change to me (it's just an argument semantic addition). - Josiah _______________________________________________ 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
