Guido van Rossum wrote:
> (a) {testlist} and {genexp} with the empty set written as set().
<...>
> As Raymond says, upheaval of other notations isn't worth the minor
> convenience that set literals provide.
+1 for option (a)
If you went for a syntactic notation for the empty set, I'd want to use {} and
make the empty dict {:}, by that idea didn't even make your list of
alternatives :)
I've still got a couple of ideas I want to explore in terms of using
metaclasses that define __getitem__ for container types, but I'll start a
separate thread for that (I want to tinker with some actual code first).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
