On 7/8/06, Ka-Ping Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> > Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
> > dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I proposed the
> > coercion syntax (ex: list from something) because it wou
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
> dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I proposed the
> coercion syntax (ex: list from something) because it would allow
> things like list(1, 2, 3) and we can already do
On 7/8/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Calvin Spealman wrote:
> > Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
> > dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I proposed the
> > coercion syntax (ex: list from something) because it would allow
> > things
Calvin Spealman wrote:
> Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
> dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I proposed the
> coercion syntax (ex: list from something) because it would allow
> things like list(1, 2, 3) and we can already do dict(ten=10,
> elev
Talin wrote:
> I'd like to encourage those who are interested to read the Javascript
> document carefully (in particular, all of the sections describing 'let',
> and the 'dictionary assignment' feature) and think about how this line
> of thinking might affect the discussion here.
>
> Who knows,
I would like to refer everyone to a very interesting URL:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/New_in_JavaScript_1.7
As you can see, there are a lot of features that are being considered
for inclusion in Javascript that have been pretty much copied verbatim
from Python.
However, what's eve
I'm -0 on the proposal; it might make the syntax more streamlined, but
I don't see a practical benefit. The current distinction between
different types of brackets works very well. I absolutely don't see
how it'd be worth to throw away dict literals just to buy set literals
(the natural spelling wo
Calvin Spealman wrote:
> dict(1=2)
That's really ugly. Equating two different integers hurts my
(mathematician's) eyes. Remember that we're not making a new language,
and even if we were, this kind of decision would be hard to justify.
--
Ivan Krstic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GPG: 0x147C722D
__
On 7/8/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Calvin Spealman wrote:
> > On 7/8/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Calvin Spealman wrote:
> >> > Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
> >> > dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I pro
Calvin Spealman wrote:
> On 7/8/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Calvin Spealman wrote:
>> > Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
>> > dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I proposed the
>> > coercion syntax (ex: list from something) beca
On 7/8/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Calvin Spealman wrote:
> > Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
> > dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I proposed the
> > coercion syntax (ex: list from something) because it would allow
> > things
On 7/8/06, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/8/06, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
> > dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I proposed the
> > coercion syntax (ex: list from something)
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006, Calvin Spealman wrote:
>
> Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
> dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I proposed the
> coercion syntax (ex: list from something) because it would allow
> things like list(1, 2, 3) and we can alread
Calvin Spealman wrote:
> Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
> dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I proposed the
> coercion syntax (ex: list from something) because it would allow
> things like list(1, 2, 3) and we can already do dict(ten=10,
> elev
On 7/8/06, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
> dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I proposed the
> coercion syntax (ex: list from something) because it would allow
> things like list(1, 2, 3)
I don't s
> ...things like list(1, 2, 3) and we can already do dict(ten=10,
> eleven=11), so what is the real need for literals as they are?...
I like list(1, 2, 3).
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python
Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I proposed the
coercion syntax (ex: list from something) because it would allow
things like list(1, 2, 3) and we can already do dict(ten=10,
eleven=11), so what is the real need
Well one thing this fixes is removal of unneeded overloading, which is
an admitted problem with builtin types doubling as factories. The
special method doesn't have to be __coerce__, and as a matter of fact
something better named would probably be more appropriate.
On 7/6/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL
> str and unicode are *distinct* types. they may be related, but not in
> the sense that type("hello") and type(r"hello") both return str.
They're distinct types, but not that distinct:
Python 2.4.1 (#65, Mar 30 2005, 09:13:57) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credi
> moreover, you can say a set is a "kind of" a keys-only dict. in fact,
> the first implementation of set used a dict, where the keys where the
> elements of the set, and their value was always True.
Or you could adopt the approach used by SETL: A dict is equivalent to a set
of 2-tuples. In other
20 matches
Mail list logo
