instead of prefixing a letter, we may be able to omit the key of
items inside dict display. 
d = {:name, :addr, ’tel': '123-4567’} 

This is my favorite variation on the notation so far. I'll give it a +1

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:49 AM Atsuo Ishimoto <> wrote:
Thank you for comments

2020年6月10日(水) 12:12 Stephen J. Turnbull <>:
> DTRTs.  How often would locals() be usable in this way?  Note: in the
> case of requests, this might be a vulnerability, because the explicit
> dict display would presumably include only relevant items, while
> locals() might inherit private credentials from the arguments, which
> need to be explicitly del'ed from d.

And in case of locals() is useful, the code may eventually become
unsafe someday later.

> I understand that this was done for ease of your POC implementatation,
> and you prefer a letter.  But I'd like to emphasize:  Please don't use
> $ for this.  Among other things, it is both in appearance and
> historically based on "S" for "set"!

I don't like it, either. But choice of valid letters are limited to
such as “$", "'" and "?".
So I think '$' is the best choice among these letters ;)

> Also, please use dict display syntax (':' not '=').

Ah, this is a typo. I use ':' in my implementation.

> If you're going to use prefix characters, I suggest 'd' for "dict",
> and maybe 's' for "set" as well (to allow the use case 's{}' for the
> empty set, though that's not terribly useful vs. set(). I'm mostly
> proposing it so I be the first to say "-1" on 's{}'. :-)

'd{}' would be a nice choice.
> It occurs to me there's an alternative syntax with even less notation:
>     d = {'tel' : '123-456-789', first, last, addr1, addr2}

This is acceptable, but I prefer prefixed dict better.

Or, instead of prefixing a letter, we may be able to omit the key of
items inside dict display.

d = {:name, :addr, ’tel': '123-4567’}

Python-ideas mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Message archived at
Code of Conduct: