On 4/26/06, Edward Loper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Unfortunately this would be (a) different from what it means today, (b) different from what tuple(x) and list(x) mean; (c) make casts from one collection type to another more cumbersome. > 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. Great. > 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.) Thanks for the statement of trust. I needed that! -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
