En Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:04:43 -0200, Sun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>>>>> test = set()
>>>>> test
>> set([])
>
> yeah, that 's what I am looking for, thanks all for such prompt answers!
>
> I was wondering why can't I use a format as "var = {} " to "var=list()"
> in
> set variable, and decided not to bother with it.
Python 3.0 has set literals {1,2,3} (perhaps they become frozensets
instead). But {} still is, and will be, an empty dict.
In reply to the n-th proposal to define a literal for empty sets, Guido
van Rossum said, in python-ideas:
"All possible proposals have already been discussed at length. Really,
writing set() isn't so bad. Get used to it."
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2008-January/001316.html
--
Gabriel Genellina
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
