[Python-3000] sets in P3K? (original) (raw)

Alex Martelli aleaxit at gmail.com
Tue Apr 25 04:17:45 CEST 2006

On Apr 24, 2006, at 6:35 PM, Greg Wilson wrote:

Ian Bicking: Instead you get set([2, 3, 5, 7]), which is much less attractive and introduces an unneeded intermediate data structure. Or set((2, 3, 5, 7))... which is typographically prettier, but probably more confusing to a newbie.

Generator comprehensions + dict() were a nice alternative to dict comprehension, and also replace the need for set comprehension. I feel like there might be some clever way to constructing sets? Not that there's any direct relation to generator expressions that I can see, but maybe something in the same vein. One of the reasons I'd like native syntax for sets is that I'd like set comprehensions: a = {b for b in c where b > 0} may not quite be as beautiful as using epsilon for membership (sorry, Alex ;-), but it's still quite nice.

I think set(b for b in c if b > 0) is much nicer -- two separate
issues, using 'where' instead of 'if' doesn't seem to buy anything,
and the distinct one of using {} rather than set(), and on EACH of
them I strongly prefer today's syntax.

Alex

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list