Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, a lot of people liked this approach, but it was rejected due to
> gratuitous breakage. While Python 3.0 is not afraid to break backwards
> compatibility, it tries to do so only when there's a very substantial
> advantage. I guess enough people felt that having a shortcut for set()
> was less important than keeping the current spelling of dict() the same.
There's even a sentiment in some pythonistas to get rid of the [] and {}
notations for lists and dicts, using list((1,2,3)) and dict((1,2),(3,4))
for [1,2,3] and {1:2, 3:4} respectively.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
