[Python-3000] Empty set and empty dictionary

DillonCo dillonco at comcast.net
Mon Apr 16 19:08:23 CEST 2007

On Monday 16 April 2007, Neville Grech wrote:
> Since set literals will change to for example {1,2,3} from set([1,2,3]) 
> and set comprehensions will be specified inside {} I feel that {} will be
> more naturally associated with sets than dicts (or at least as much).

While the topic of set literals is around, I figure I ought to ask something 
that's been on my mind:

Why not use "<>" for sets?  As far as I can tell, they're only currently used 
in "expr '<' | '>' " contexts, so it'd be easy to distinguish usages. (I 
think.  The "[]" operators are used similarly.)

I know the traditional mathematical notation uses "{}" and having it 
overloaded isn't a big deal; I'm simply curious. 

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list