10 Jun
2014
10 Jun
'14
6:25 p.m.
+1 for using {,}. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Wichert Akkermanwrote: > Victor Stinner wrote: > > > 2014-06-10 8:15 GMT+02:00 Neil Girdhar >: > > >* I've seen this proposed before, and I personally would love this, but my > *>* guess is that it breaks too much code for too little gain. > *>>* On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:33:30 PM UTC-4, Frédéric Legembre wrote: > *>>>>>>* Now | Future | > *>>* ---------------------------------------------------- > *>>* () | () | empty tuple ( 1, 2, 3 ) > *>>* [] | [] | empty list [ 1, 2, 3 ] > *>>* set() | {} | empty set { 1, 2, 3 } > *>>* {} | {:} | empty dict { 1:a, 2:b, 3:c } > * > > Your guess is right. It will break all Python 2 and Python 3 in the world. > > Technically, set((1, 2)) is different than {1, 2}: the first creates a > tuple and loads the global name "set" (which can be replaced at > runtime!), whereas the later uses bytecode and only store values > (numbers 1 and 2). > > It would be nice to have a syntax for empty set, but {} is a no-no. > > > Perhaps {,} would be a possible spelling. For consistency you might want > to allow (,) to create an empty tuple as well; personally I would find that > more intuitive that (()). > > Wichert. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > -- Ryan If anybody ever asks me why I prefer C++ to C, my answer will be simple: "It's becauseslejfp23(@#Q*(E*EIdc-SEGFAULT. Wait, I don't think that was nul-terminated."