[Python-3000] sets in P3K?

[Nick Coghlan]

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> (a) {testlist} and {genexp} with the empty set written as set().
<...>
> As Raymond says, upheaval of other notations isn't worth the minor
> convenience that set literals provide.

+1 for option (a)

If you went for a syntactic notation for the empty set, I'd want to use {} and 
make the empty dict {:}, by that idea didn't even make your list of 
alternatives :)

I've still got a couple of ideas I want to explore in terms of using 
metaclasses that define __getitem__ for container types, but I'll start a 
separate thread for that (I want to tinker with some actual code first).

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
             http://www.boredomandlaziness.org