[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       python-dev
Subject:    Re: [Python-Dev] Py2.6 buildouts to the set API
From:       skip () pobox ! com
Date:       2007-05-20 14:16:37
Message-ID: 18000.22597.5993.854803 () montanaro ! dyndns ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


    >> * New method (proposed by Shane Holloway):  s1.isdisjoint(s2).   

    Mike> +1.  Disjointness verification is one of my main uses for set(),
    Mike> and though I don't think that the early-out condition would
    Mike> trigger often in my code, it would increase readability.

I think the readbility argument is marginal at best.  I use sets frequently
and to the greatest extent possible use the builtin operator support because
I find that more readable.  So for me, I'd be going from

    if not s1 & s2:

to

    if s1.isdisjoint(s2):

I'm not sure that's an improvement.

Maybe it's just me, but given two sets I frequently want to operate on
s1-s2, s2-s1 and s1&s2 in different ways.  I wouldn't find a disjoint
operation all that useful.

Skip
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python-dev%40progressive-comp.com
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]