On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 10:02 AM Joao S. O. Bueno <jsbu...@python.org.br>
wrote:
> > but I don't think we should underestimate the cost of even this small
> complexity increase in the language.
>
> Actually, I think _maybe_ in this case the "complexity increase" cost is
> _negative_. People might waste
> more time looking for a way of spelling a frozenset literal than just
> filling in "frozenset(....)".
> I for one, even knowing that the cost of writing "frozenset({1,2,3})" is
> negligible, would
> "feel" better there was a way to spell that without the needless
> conversions.
>
> That said, an appropriate prefix for the {} just as we do for strigns
> would be nice, and
> I disagree that it would be a significant source for "bugs". The "@{" is a
> nice
> way out if people think "f{}" would be too close to "f()". And "<1,2,3>"
> just for frozensets
> are indeed overkill. We already do "literal prefixing" with `"` after all.
> and formally extending this
> prefix usage as needed for other literals seems like a nice path.
> But, as far as bikeshedding go, we also have "literal sufixing" (2.0j
> anyone?)- maybe
> "{1,2,3}f" ?
>
I have been following along with not much to comment but this response
sparked something in me.
After reading all the viewpoints I think I would be +1 on the basic idea,
and a +1 on the postfix/suffix syntax just suggested... the other syntaxes
I'm more of +0.5
I like the way the suffix FLOWS with the act of writing the program. When I
write a set, I am primarily focused on *what I am going to put in it*, and
whether or not it should be mutable is kind of a later thought/debate in my
head after I have established what it contains.
As a dumb example, if my task at hand is "I need to create a bag of sports
balls", I am mostly thinking about what goes into that bag at first, so I
will write that first:
>>> {Ball("basketball"), Ball("soccer"), Ball("football"), Ball("golf")}
Now I get to the end of that line, and I then sort of naturally think "ok
does it make sense to freeze this" after i know what is in it. With the
postfix syntax, I then either type the f:
>>> {Ball("basketball"), Ball("soccer"), Ball("football"), Ball("golf")}f
...or not. With a prefix type syntax, or a smooth bracket syntax, either:
A. it takes slightly more "work' at this point to "convert" the set to a
frozenset, OR
B. i have to think about ahead of time-- before i have actually written
what is in the set- whether it will be frozen, or not.
In contrast, when you are deciding whether to write a list vs a tuple, you
are deciding between two things that are fundamentally far more different
IDEAS than a "bag of things, frozen or unfrozen". A list is very often more
of an open ended stack than it is "an unfrozen tuple". A tuple is very
often much more of an object that can be used as a dictionary key, or a
member of a set, than it is a container of things (of course, it is a
container of things, too). These differences make is a lot easier to
choose, ahead of time, which one makes sense before you have even written
the line of code.
Maybe I'm making too much of this, but I really like the idea of deciding
at the END of the set literal whether to tack on that "f".
---
Ricky.
"I've never met a Kentucky man who wasn't either thinking about going home
or actually going home." - Happy Chandler
_______________________________________________
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/T7X3XI3ZQMQIQEMGPSTGLAFOCMXKWWFV/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
