One thing to consider is if we're going to have a syntax capable of
creating an empty frozenset, we need one that creates an empty set.
if f{...} exists, then s{...} should also exist?
Regards
João Bernardo
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 2:59 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas <
python-ideas@python.org> wrote:
> I'm +1 on the idea.
> I'm happy with the
> f{ ... }
> syntax (although I did suggest something else).
> We already have letter-prefixes, let's stick to them rather than adding
> something new (which conceivably might one day find another use).
> Best wishes
> Rob Cliffe
>
> On 18/01/2022 15:53, Ricky Teachey wrote:
>
> 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-leave@python.orghttps://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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/VRGSQR7ISWFLKJTFDYWRNBGA47ECFDRU/
> 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/5D4QI6O2ZUYHO7PX25TJOSJHAMIPFRWK/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
