2010/11/15 spir
[sorry, sent unintentionally]
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:02:53 -0800 Guido van Rossum
wrote: There is nothing obvious about {:} for the empty dictionary. :-)
{:} for empty dict could make some sense. If that is ever accepted, it will probably go in Python 4 as the change is so important.
Anyone votes for {/} meaning empty set?
-1. List, tuple and dict have their own literals. Now sets shares dict's literals. That's why I proposed using a new container literal for sets, such as <1, 2, 3> where an empty set would be <>. As lists and tuples are the mutable/immutable pairs, I thought we could have literals for frozenset as well. But I can no longer find available opening/closing symbols on my keyboard. Darn. I also thought about doubling braces, such as {{1, 2, 3}}, then {{}} for an empty set would work. (and probably break some templating engines out there ;)). But it conflicts with "a dict in a set" (which is unhashable anyway, but that's not a valid reason). -- Alex | twitter.com/alexconrad