On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 6:06 AM Matt del Valle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What I meant to say is that the other comparable builtin types
> (comma-delimited containers of some description) that have literals built
> into the language (list, tuple, dict) also have a literal that represents
> an empty version of themselves, except for set.
>
To emphasize that point, sets DO have a literal (or display, or whatever we
want to call it) for non-empty sets, so there is a real asymmetry there.
I like {,} alright, and then maybe allowing [,] and (,) for lists and
tuple, but where does dict fit in? maybe: {:,} ? kinda ugluy, but provides
more symmetry
The fact that () creates a tuple, but (2) does not is problematic -- way
too late to change anything there, but adding (,) as an optional empty
tuple might help a tiny bit in the future.
-CHB
--
Christopher Barker, PhD (Chris)
Python Language Consulting
- Teaching
- Scientific Software Development
- Desktop GUI and Web Development
- wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/2ZIOKBWW242COU5ZMLU46YOR2GQI3V6N/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
