[Python-3000] sets in P3K?

[Raymond Hettinger]

>>>set() == set{}
>>>set(x)              # No braced equivalent
>>>set([x]) == set{x}  # Ignoring list comprehensions
>>>set((x,)) == set{x}
>>>set((a, b, c)) == set{a, b, c}
>>>      
>>>
>>I would rather stick to what we have than introduce two notations for
>>construction, call, subscripting, etc. --- Perl's [] vs. {} *always*
>>causes headaches for newcomers.
>>    
>>
>
>And last time I looked they were gonna change it for Perl 6.
>
>  
>

Nick's syntax proposal represents some creative and original thinking on 
the problem; however, I think all such proposals face a somewhat 
difficult hurdle -- a change has to be weighed against the almost 
microscopically small benefit provided by set literals.  Accordingly, we 
should reject any set literal proposal that results in complexifying the 
grammar.  While I would like to see some way of writing set literals, it 
certainly isn't worth the dizzying effect produced by the examples shown 
above.

IOW, I recommend saving your big guns (alternative constructor syntaxes) 
for big problems whose solutions provide big rewards.   Set literals are 
barely worth the brain power that has already been expended in this 
thread.  If a set literal proposal isn't dirt simple, it is almost 
certainly a mistake.


Raymond