It's not stupid, but it's been brought up before (exactly like you
propose) and rejected, on the basis that dicts are still much more
common than sets in most code.
On 4/16/07, Neville Grech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> This is just some syntax sugar:
>
> Since set literals will change to for example {1,2,3} from set([1,2,3]) and
> set comprehensions will be specified inside {} I feel that {} will be more
> naturally associated with sets than dicts (or at least as much).
>
> What if the empty set literal is changed to {} and an empty dict literal
> changed to {:}. Performing the conversion automatically wouldn't be so
> complex and also un-ambiguous. The hardest thing to change would be the
> mentality then.
>
> i.e:
> {} ::= set([])
> {1,2,3} ::= set([1,2,3])
> {x for x in y} ::= set(x for x in y)
> {:} ::= dict()
>
> {a:b, h:j} is a dict since it contains colons.
>
> I hope this isn't a stupid suggestion (I'm new here).
>
> -Neville
> _______________________________________________
> Python-3000 mailing list
> Python-3000@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
> Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/guido%40python.org
>
>
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
