On 10/23/19 6:07 AM, Ricky Teachey wrote:
I would expect %w{ ... } to return a set, not a list:
%w[ ... ] # list
%w{ ... ] # set
%w( ... ) # tuple
and I would describe them as list/set/tuple "word literals". Unlike
list etc displays [spam, eggs, cheese] these would actually be true
literals that can be determined entirely at compile-time.
A more convenient way to populate lists/tuples/sets full of strings at
compile time seems like a win.
If I might be allowed to bikeshed: the w seems unnecessary. Why not drop
it in favor of a single character like %, and use an optional r for raw
strings?
%[words] # "words".split()
%{words} # set("words".split())
%(words) # tuple("words".split())
%r[wo\rds] # "wo\\rds".split()
%r{wo\rds} # set("wo\\rds".split())
%r(wo\rds) # tuple("wo\\rds".split())
At that point, the "obvious" choice is an "s" (short for "split")
string rather than a whole new construct:
>>> s"one two three"
["one", "two", "three"]
which could be combined with "r" like f and b strings.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/PN4CSBEU6GFNT37HBRU325F6BDRPWR7N/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
