Guido van Rossum wrote: > I don't think this form (set(1, 2, 3)) will ever fly, because it would > makes set(x) ambiguous.
For what it's worth, under the changes I was proposing set(x) would be unambiguous -- it would mean a set containing the single element x. A separate class method would be required to create a set containing the elements of an iterable x. I would be -1 on any proposal that tries to make set(x) depend on the value of x. But I was only +0 on the proposal to begin with; and so if Guido's intuitions say that class method factories are "ugly and should be limited to cases that are rare but nevertheless useful," then it's fairly clear to me that this isn't the right way to go. (Our BDFL's intuitions about what's ugly seem to be quite trustworthy.) -Edward _______________________________________________ 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
