On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:36:31PM +0200, Matteo Nastasi wrote: > A set could be defined as { item1, item2, item3[...] }
Guido's time machine strikes again. Python 3: py> s = {1, 2, 3} py> type(s) <class 'set'> > with {,} as an empty set That looks like a typo. I don't think that having a literal for empty sets is important enough that we need worry about the lack. > An ordered dict could be defined as [ item1: value1, item2: value2 ... ] > with [:] ase an empty odered dict I think that's been proposed before. I don't hate that suggestion, but I don't think its very useful either. We already have a de facto "Ordered Mapping" literal that can be passed to the OrderedDict constructor: OrderedDict( [(key1, value1), (key2, value2), (key3, value3), ...] ) Its not quite as compact, but it isn't too awful. And if you really don't like it, try: OrderedDict(zip(keys, values)) -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/