On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:20 AM Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> wrote:

08.04.21 19:58, ucodery@gmail.com пише:
> I would like to propose adding literal syntax to allow creation of an empty set without the need to call the type constructor. I believe the best choice for such a literal, and one that has been proposed before, is `{,}`.

You can now use `{*()}` as a syntax for empty set.

Interestingly, Raymond Hettinger recently had a post on twitter specifically deriding this usage as obfuscatory, and expressing his preference that people not do it (and use set() instead).

https://twitter.com/raymondh/status/1372376414184296448

I tend to agree with him on that... I have no opinion on whether set should be given its own "empty repr literal", but I don't think {*()} is a useful suggestion to give people who want one.

---

Ricky.

"I've never met a Kentucky man who wasn't either thinking about going home or actually going home." - Happy Chandler