Right. All possible proposals have already been discussed at length. Really, writing set() isn't so bad. Get used to it. On Jan 17, 2008 10:23 AM, George Sakkis <george.sakkis@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 17, 2008 1:10 PM, Steven Bethard <steven.bethard@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Jan 17, 2008 3:15 AM, Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> wrote:

...

I just wondered if changing the empty set & dict syntax might be possible.

s = {} # empty set d = {:} # empty dict

I think this would be more understandable to newcomers since to create single element ones we have:

s = {1} d = {1:1}

?

This was discussed when set literals were added. It was decided that it would be too much of a backwards incompatibility even for Python 3.0. It may be worth re-considering for Python 4.0. ;-)

How about {/} for empty sets ? (although chances are that this or something similar has been discussed and rejected too :)).

George

_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

George Sakkis schrieb:

On Jan 17, 2008 1:10 PM, Steven Bethard <steven.bethard@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Jan 17, 2008 3:15 AM, Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> wrote:

...

I just wondered if changing the empty set & dict syntax might be possible.

s = {} # empty set d = {:} # empty dict

I think this would be more understandable to newcomers since to create single element ones we have:

s = {1} d = {1:1}

?

This was discussed when set literals were added. It was decided that it would be too much of a backwards incompatibility even for Python 3.0. It may be worth re-considering for Python 4.0. ;-)

How about {/} for empty sets ? (although chances are that this or something similar has been discussed and rejected too :)).

It has been discussed and rejected. :) Georg

Right. All possible proposals have already been discussed at length. Really, writing set() isn't so bad. Get used to it. On Jan 17, 2008 10:23 AM, George Sakkis <george.sakkis@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 17, 2008 1:10 PM, Steven Bethard <steven.bethard@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Jan 17, 2008 3:15 AM, Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> wrote:

...

I just wondered if changing the empty set & dict syntax might be possible.

s = {} # empty set d = {:} # empty dict

I think this would be more understandable to newcomers since to create single element ones we have:

s = {1} d = {1:1}

?

This was discussed when set literals were added. It was decided that it would be too much of a backwards incompatibility even for Python 3.0. It may be worth re-considering for Python 4.0. ;-)

How about {/} for empty sets ? (although chances are that this or something similar has been discussed and rejected too :)).

George

_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

George Sakkis schrieb:

On Jan 17, 2008 1:10 PM, Steven Bethard <steven.bethard@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Jan 17, 2008 3:15 AM, Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> wrote:

...

I just wondered if changing the empty set & dict syntax might be possible.

s = {} # empty set d = {:} # empty dict

I think this would be more understandable to newcomers since to create single element ones we have:

s = {1} d = {1:1}

?

This was discussed when set literals were added. It was decided that it would be too much of a backwards incompatibility even for Python 3.0. It may be worth re-considering for Python 4.0. ;-)

How about {/} for empty sets ? (although chances are that this or something similar has been discussed and rejected too :)).

It has been discussed and rejected. :) Georg