Message108951
| Author |
rhettinger |
| Recipients |
alexandre.vassalotti, belopolsky, fdrake, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger |
| Date |
2010年06月29日.21:01:51 |
| SpamBayes Score |
4.234455e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1277845313.36.0.628721581233.issue9120@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Will think about this one for a while. Initial reaction is that the case isn't common enough to care about, and that the 5 byte savings isn't worth the extra code path.
> By the same logic, allowing set() as an alternative
> to set([]) in python code is "premature optimization".
That wasn't an optimization -- it was needed for API
consistency with other types (i.e. list(), dict(), etc).
The zero argument form supports a use case for
polymorphic creation of an empty container regardless
of type. |
|