[Python-3000] Empty set and empty dictionary

[Neville Grech]

That would probably be very difficult to parse because it introduces 
ambiguities. Take a look at this situation:

<8,True, 3>=4, 5 >

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DillonCo" <dillonco at comcast.net>
To: <python-3000 at python.org>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Python-3000] Empty set and empty dictionary


> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-3000 mailing list
> Python-3000 at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
> Unsubscribe: 
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/nevillegrech%40hotmail.com
>