On 3/25/2014 2:50 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
ALl of which is isomorphic to Steven's point that forty is less
eyeballable than 40
And mine that ∅ is more eyeballable than set([])
I don't disagree that it is; the short tokens are easier to read in
quantity. I just don't think that it's sufficient to justify piles of
new and hard-to-look-up operators and things. (And a literal notation
for an empty set would be a good thing. If I were designing a
Python-like language from scratch now, I'd probably differentiate sets
and dictionaries better, which would allow each one to have its own
empty literal.)
If {} were empty set, {:} would be empty dict. This was considered but
rejected for 3.0 as breaking too much code for too little benefit.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
