On Monday 16 April 2007, Neville Grech wrote: > 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).
While the topic of set literals is around, I figure I ought to ask something that's been on my mind: Why not use "<>" for sets? As far as I can tell, they're only currently used in "expr '<' | '>' " contexts, so it'd be easy to distinguish usages. (I think. The "[]" operators are used similarly.) I know the traditional mathematical notation uses "{}" and having it overloaded isn't a big deal; I'm simply curious. _______________________________________________ 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