I think someone has probably proposed this before, but why not use "{,}"
as the empty set literal? It's somewhat analogous to the 1-element tuple
syntax and fairly similar to the syntax that the original set PEP
proposed ("{-}"). From what I understand, {-} was nixed for being too
hard to parse because the minus sign could be the start of an
expression. I don't think this would apply to the comma as it's
basically used as an expression separator; however I'm no expert on
Python's grammar and parser, so I can't be sure.
Thoughts?
- Chris Rebert
Eoghan Murray wrote:
> I had another idea on this theme.. going by unicode and raw string
> literals,
> how about
> s[1, 2, 3, 4]
> for a set?
>
> Eoghan
>
> On 17/04/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> DillonCo wrote:
>>
>> > Why not use "<>" for sets?
>>
>> Some possible reasons:
>>
>> * It would look ugly
>>
>> * There could be visual confusion with comparison operators
>>
>> * There could be parsing difficulties distinguishing
>> nested set bracketing from << and >> operators
>>
>> --
>> Greg
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/eoghan%40qatano.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/cvrebert%40gmail.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
