Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?)

Chris Angelico rosuav at gmail.com
Tue Mar 25 07:50:53 CET 2014

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody at gmail.com> wrote:
> ALl of which is isomorphic to Steven's point that forty is less
> eyeballable than 40
> And mine that ∅ is more eyeballable than set([])

I don't disagree that it is; the short tokens are easier to read in
quantity. I just don't think that it's sufficient to justify piles of
new and hard-to-look-up operators and things. (And a literal notation
for an empty set would be a good thing. If I were designing a
Python-like language from scratch now, I'd probably differentiate sets
and dictionaries better, which would allow each one to have its own
empty literal.)


More information about the Python-list mailing list