> I'm curious as to whether people will find one-type-with-two-purposes
> easier to learn that what we have now.
I see no problem with that. We already have
lists-that-can-work-as-stacks-or-queues.
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http
While we're at it... what happens to frozenset?
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
> ...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
> 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
> i had this idea -- since quoted literals can be prefixed by a letter
> that alters their meaning, why not use the same semantics
> with curly braces?
String literals are always strings, no matter what kind of string as
defined by the prefix. On the other hand, dictionaries and sets seems
differe
> It is how much possible to understand slice in Python language is a
> reception of a range of values with the certain step. By default this
> step is equal to 1 for objects of any type. It is possible to assume,
> that the similar behaviour can be at types float, decimal, long and
> other. As the
