On Monday, February 11, 2013 6:40:23 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> [...]
> Or doing what you were pointing and laughing at Pike for, and using
> two-symbol delimiters. You could even make it majorly logical:
>
> list_ = [[ 1, 2, 3 ]]
> tuple_ = ([ 1, 2, 3 ])
> dict_ = [{ 1, 2, 3 }]
> frozendict_ = ({ 1, 2, 3 })
> set_ = [< 1, 2, 3 >]
> frozenset_ = (< 1, 2, 3 >)
I am vehemently against using more than one "opening seq char" and one "closing
seq char". It works fine for single depth sequences, however, once you start
nesting the mental focus required to parse the doubled openers/closers is
headache inducing. I would accept wrapping the literal in some sort of
declaration though, something like i proposed earlier in the thread. The
easiest is to use:
set({1,2,3})
but that looks like a function call! So we'd need a unique syntax. Either a
single tag like:
set{1,2,3}
Or we could use start and end tags like:
set{1,2,3}set
where "set{" and "}set" are delimiters. For lists, tuples, and dict we would
use the short form because these literals are far too ubiquitous:
[1,2,3] # list
{k:v} # dict
(1,2,3) # tuple
However, the grouping chars for tuples has always been confusing because they
can clash with grouping of expressions. What is this?
(1)
It's NOT a tuple! But it looks like a tuple! What is this:
1,2
it IS a tuple, but it does not look like a tuple!
That's an unfortunate side effect of a poorly thought-out tuple syntax.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
