[Python-ideas] syntax for set

Ron Adam rrr at ronadam.com
Mon Nov 22 17:49:15 CET 2010



On 11/22/2010 04:16 AM, Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
> Terry Reedy dixit (2010-11-15, 13:45):
>
>> The *only* glitch is the lack of an empty set notation. The idea of
>> dict() == {:}; set()=={};
>> which would be the obvious choice if starting fresh,
>> was considered but rejected by Guido as too disruptive
>> and introducing another barrier between Python 2 and 3.
>
> I'd be happy with:
>
> * {:} for empty dict() (as a collection of key-value *pairs*)
> * {.} for empty set() (as a similar collection of *single* elements)
>
> And {} for empty dict() as well -- to keep compatibility (maybe to be
> deprecated later).

Maybe it's not intentional, but where ever a colon is used, it tends to 
mean "make an association to".  (except in slicing)

       Key : value                   # This is also name : object.

       class name : class body

       function name : function body


And where ever a '.' is, it tends to mean "get a sub-part of:

       class name . method name


So the {.} doesn't really fit with this idea.  Probably the correct set 
notation would have been {} if it was put into python before dictionaries.

If you follow this line of reasoning, then a dictionary is a set of 
associations.  ie... {} for set, and : for associated to, and put those 
together and we have {:}.

An interesting "wild" idea might be to delay defining weather it's a 
dictionary or a set depending on how it's first used.  Then {} could be 
both an empty set and an empty dictionary, but I think there are probably 
are a lot of reasons not to do that.

Ron
























More information about the Python-ideas mailing list