Personally, if I had a time machine I would pick a syntax like
but I don't have a time machine and even if I did I don't think I'd use it for that. The difference is that the former is special syntax, while the latter isn't. No matter what I do to the the varible r, r"string" is still a string, while set([...]) can be perverted.

However, given what we've got I can't really say that ([ instead of { is that big a deal.

--- Bruce

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Ben Finney <> wrote:
Guido van Rossum <> writes:

> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Terry Reedy<> wrote:
> > OrderedDict({'a':1', 'b':'2', 'c':'3'}]
> >
> >
> >> How about ['a':'1', 'b':'2', 'c':'3']?
> -100.

(Hey! I though the valid range of votes was -1 through +1, I didn't know
we were giving the BDFL more than one vote! :-)

Can you summarise what you dislike about the above syntax suggestion for
ordered dict literal?

 \      “If the desire to kill and the opportunity to kill came always |
 `\      together, who would escape hanging?” —Mark Twain, _Following |
_o__)                                                     the Equator_ |
Ben Finney

Python-ideas mailing list