I do get what it does, but the phrase in the PEP feels like there is wiggle
room: "The new notation listed above is effectively short-hand for the
following existing notation."
"Effectively" doesn't quite feel the same as "guaranteed exactly
equivalent."
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 10:22 PM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 1:10 PM David Mertz, Ph.D.
> <david.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I like this. I think explicitly discussing order of inclusion would be
> worthwhile. I know it's implied by the approximate equivalents, but
> actually stating it would improve the PEP, IMO.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > nums = [(1, 2, 3), (1.0, 2.0, 3.0)]
> > nset = {*n for n in nums}
> >
> > Does 'nset' wind up containing integers or floats? Is this a language
> guarantee?
> >
>
> Easy way to find out: take out the extra nesting level and try it.
>
> >>> nums = [1, 2, 3, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0]
> >>> nset = {n for n in nums}
> >>> nset
> {1, 2, 3}
>
> The *n version would have the exact same behaviour, since it will see
> the elements in the exact same order.
>
> ChrisA
> _______________________________________________
> 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/2QCOFW6EEFX2BE24ZOW2G3NUGYVEBQVA/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
_______________________________________________
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/GWJJ2LGS3EXJBAVVI27I4VZU6RRFJBND/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
