22 Nov
2010
22 Nov
'10
12:40 p.m.
I'd be happy with:
* {:} for empty dict() (as a collection of key-value *pairs*) * {.} for empty set() (as a similar collection of *single* elements)
And {} for empty dict() as well -- to keep compatibility (maybe to be deprecated later).
I'm curious why you guys think you *need* an empty set literal. The current spelling using set() and frozenset() is unambiguous. So what's the point of trying to shoehorn-in a new literal? AFAICT, this discussion has been solely motivated by a shallow itch, "dicts have one, so sets have to have one too". If there were a clean, beautiful, obvious correct answer, it would have already been done. Since there isn't, we have to ask, who cares? Raymond