[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> For Python 3.0 I'd like {} for the empty set and {:} for the empty
> dict, but that idea was refused time ago, probably for some mental
> backward compatibility.
I agree with not breaking that backward compatibility; it seems
wanton.
> Missing that, I think dict() and set() and tuple() and list()
I often use these myself. They're slightly more explicit, which can
help when I want the reader not to have to think too much, and they're
not particularly verbose because the names are well-chosen and short.
> look better than using {} for the empty dict and {/} for the empty
> set and () for empty tuple
Note that '()' is syntactically null. Parentheses don't declare a
tuple literal, commas do. Parentheses are for grouping within
expressions, not specifying type.
> (or {} for the empty dict and set() for the empty set).
I thought you said above that you preferred 'set()' for an empty set?
I'm not sure what it is you're saying now.
> the only little wart left is the unary tuple literal: x, that I
> don't like much
I agree that it's a wart, but I think the harm done by trying to
change it would be more than the harm done by leaving it in.
--
\ “[W]e are still the first generation of users, and for all that |
`\ we may have invented the net, we still don’t really get it.” |
_o__) —Douglas Adams |
Ben Finney
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
