[Python-ideas] Empty set, Empty dict

[Ryan Gonzalez]

+1 for using {,}.


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Wichert Akkerman <wichert at wiggy.net> wrote:

> Victor Stinner wrote:
>
>
> 2014-06-10 8:15 GMT+02:00 Neil Girdhar <mistersheik at gmail.com <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas>>:
>
> >* I've seen this proposed before, and I personally would love this, but my
> *>* guess is that it breaks too much code for too little gain.
> *>>* On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:33:30 PM UTC-4, Frédéric Legembre wrote:
> *>>>>>>*    Now   |  Future  |
> *>>* ----------------------------------------------------
> *>>*    ()    |   ()     |  empty tuple  ( 1, 2, 3 )
> *>>*    []    |   []     |  empty list   [ 1, 2, 3 ]
> *>>*    set() |   {}     |  empty set    { 1, 2, 3 }
> *>>*    {}    |   {:}    |  empty dict   { 1:a, 2:b, 3:c }
> *
>
> Your guess is right. It will break all Python 2 and Python 3 in the world.
>
> Technically, set((1, 2)) is different than {1, 2}: the first creates a
> tuple and loads the global name "set" (which can be replaced at
> runtime!), whereas the later uses bytecode and only store values
> (numbers 1 and 2).
>
> It would be nice to have a syntax for empty set, but {} is a no-no.
>
>
> Perhaps {,} would be a possible spelling. For consistency you might want
> to allow (,) to create an empty tuple as well; personally I would find that
> more intuitive that (()).
>
> Wichert.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>



-- 
Ryan
If anybody ever asks me why I prefer C++ to C, my answer will be simple:
"It's becauseslejfp23(@#Q*(E*EIdc-SEGFAULT. Wait, I don't think that was
nul-terminated."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20140610/12360692/attachment.html>