[Python-3000] sets in P3K? (original) (raw)
Barry Warsaw barry at python.org
Thu Apr 27 22:46:45 CEST 2006
- Previous message: [Python-3000] sets in P3K?
- Next message: [Python-3000] sets in P3K?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 12:57 -0600, Steven Bethard wrote:
On 4/27/06, Raymond Hettinger <rhettinger at ewtllc.com> wrote: > [pep-3100 checkin] > > {F(x) for x in S if P(x)} means set(F(x) for x in S if P(x)). > > I presume this means that there will never be dictionary > comprehensions (as they would aspire to have an identical > notation).
Why would that be necessary? Wouldn't {F(x):G(x) for x in S if P(x)} be unambiguous? (Not that I'm pushing for dict comprehensions -- I just don't see how if Guido wants both dict and set comprehensions, he couldn't have them.)
Can I unwithdraw PEP 274 now?
-Barry
-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 309 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/attachments/20060427/aec41e86/attachment.pgp
- Previous message: [Python-3000] sets in P3K?
- Next message: [Python-3000] sets in P3K?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]