<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This is just some syntax sugar:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Since set literals will change to for example
{1,2,3} from set([1,2,3]) and set comprehensions will be specified inside
{} I feel that {} will be more naturally associated with sets than dicts
(or at least as much).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What if the empty set literal is changed to {} and
an empty dict literal changed to {:}. Performing the conversion automatically
wouldn't be so complex and also un-ambiguous. The hardest thing to change would
be the mentality then.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>i.e:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>{} ::= set([])</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>{1,2,3} ::= set([1,2,3])</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>{x for x in y} ::= set(x for x in y)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>{:} ::= dict()</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>{a:b, h:j} is a dict since it contains
colons.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I hope this isn't a stupid suggestion (I'm new
here).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-Neville</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>