# [Python-3000] Set literal

Raymond Hettinger python at rcn.com
Thu Jan 24 23:32:02 CET 2008

```I think it would be more useful for the {e1, e2, e3} literal to be a frozenset instead of a set.

In expressions like "x in {'html', 'xml', 'php'}" the compiler could optimize away the set construction and treat it as a constant.

In cases where we want to build-up mutable sets, we need to start with set() anyway:

s = set()
for elem in source:

I don't think it would be typical to start with a partially filled-out set and then build-t up further:

s = {'a', 'b', 'c'}   # rare use-case
for elem in source:

One of the primary use cases for frozensets is to be members of other sets or to be keys in a dict (esp. for graph representations).  The repr's of those nested structures are annoying to read because the word "frozenset" gets spelled-out over and over again.  Here's a few lines from the pprint() output for a graph of a cube:

{frozenset([0, 1]): frozenset([frozenset([0]),
frozenset([1]),
frozenset([0, 1, 2])]),
frozenset([0, 1, 2]): frozenset([frozenset([1, 2]),
frozenset([0, 2]),
frozenset([0, 1])])}

This would read *much* better with the new notation:

{{0, 1}: {{0},
{1},
{0, 1, 2}},
{0, 1, 2}: {{1, 2},
{0, 2},
{0, 1}}}

If you want to see how extremely bad the current repr's can get, see the repr for David Eppstein's cuboctahedron in the tests for pprint:  http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2008-January/065099.html

In short, I think we would be much better served by using the {} literal notation for frozensets.

Raymond

P.S.  A small side-benefit is it may put an end for interminable requests for a {:} or {/} notation for empty sets.  There's not much need for a literal for a empty frozenset (use "not s" instead).

```