> Possible solution:
> s = {} # new empty set
> d = {:} # new empty dictionary (the ":" is a reference to key-value pairs)
This would be fine for a new language. But completely out of the question
for Python — it would break an enormous amount of code.
We are in this position because sets are relatively new to Python, and
there are only so many brackets.
Current workaround at least for consistency:
> l = list() # new empty list
> t = tuple() # new empty tuple
> s = set() # new empty set
> d = dict() # new empty dictionary
>
> However, it doesn't feel right to not be able to initialize an empty set
> as cleanly and consistently as lists, tuples and dictionaries in both forms.
It may not “feel” right, but is it that big a deal? There are literally any
number of types that can’t be initialized with a “literal” — so consistence
is not compelling here. set() is (maybe?) the only builtin, but is
initializing and empty set that common?
Note, there was a recent thread on this list about a literal for frozenset
— I think:
f{} was proposed— you may want to revive that -and add s{} for an empty set
…
Though i personally wouldn’t support the idea.
-CHB
--
Christopher Barker, PhD (Chris)
Python Language Consulting
- Teaching
- Scientific Software Development
- Desktop GUI and Web Development
- wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ZBVUQDEBQEHUO5GLJ7FFQ4SJ5CAGMQFA/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
