On Monday 16 April 2007, Neville Grech wrote:
> Since set literals will change to for example {1,2,3} from set([1,2,3])
> and set comprehensions will be specified inside {} I feel that {} will be
> more naturally associated with sets than dicts (or at least as much).
While the topic of set literals is around, I figure I ought to ask something
that's been on my mind:
Why not use "<>" for sets? As far as I can tell, they're only currently used
in "expr '<' | '>' " contexts, so it'd be easy to distinguish usages. (I
think. The "[]" operators are used similarly.)
I know the traditional mathematical notation uses "{}" and having it
overloaded isn't a big deal; I'm simply curious.
_______________________________________________
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
