[Python-ideas] More useful slices (original) (raw)

João Santos jmcs at jsantos.eu
Mon Feb 2 13:48:33 CET 2015

L = ['foo', 'bar', 'baz'] is syntactic sugar, you can write L = list('foo', 'bar', 'baz')

On 2 February 2015 at 13:43, Rob Cliffe <rob.cliffe at btinternet.com> wrote:

On 02/02/2015 12:38, Todd wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Rob Cliffe <rob.cliffe at btinternet.com> wrote:

On 02/02/2015 11:19, Todd wrote:

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Todd <toddrjen at gmail.com> wrote: > First, it wouldn't be a replacement. The existing range syntax would still > exist. > > But the reason it is beneficial is the same reason we have [a, b, c] for > list, {a:1, b:2, c:3} for dicts, {a, b, c} for sets, and (a, b, c) for > tuples. Well, we have to have some syntax for literal lists, dicts etc. But we already have range, so there is no compelling need to add new syntax. Why do we need literals at all? They are just syntactic sugar. Python went a long time without a set literal. Well, if you'd rather write L = list() L.add('foo') L.add('bar') L.add('baz') than L = ['foo', 'bar', 'baz'] then good luck to you.

Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas at python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20150202/a16242cd/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-ideas mailing list