faulkner schrieb: > On Feb 14, 11:55 am, Schüle Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> lst = list((1,2,3)) >> lst = [1,2,3] >> >> t = tupel((1,2,3)) >> t = (1,2,3) >> >> s = set((1,2,3)) >> s = ... >> >> it would be nice feature to have builtin literal for set type >> maybe in P3 .. what about? >> s = <1,2,3> >> >> Regards, Daniel > > sets aren't quite that useful or common. just use a list. > and '<' and '>' already have syntactic meanings.
well, I thought about this the empty set <> has the meaning of != now as far as I remember is <> depricated and will disappear When they are gone in P3000, <> could be reused as empty set. > and that would make python look more like C++, which nobody wants. I dont think that actually many people fear this. we have {} for dicts and I doubt anybody mistake them for C++ brakets. In my previuos post I forgot to mention d = dict() d = {} s = set() s = <> why not, on the first sight everybody will see ... here our algorithmus deals with unique things/objects ... put in a set. Regards, Daniel -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list