That would probably be very difficult to parse because it introduces
ambiguities. Take a look at this situation:
<8,True, 3>=4, 5 >
----- Original Message -----
From: "DillonCo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <python-3000@python.org>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Python-3000] Empty set and empty dictionary
> 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/nevillegrech%40hotmail.com
>
_______________________________________________
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
