Raymond Hettinger <rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
Will think about this one for a while. Initial reaction is that the case isn't common enough to care about, and that the 5 byte savings isn't worth the extra code path. > By the same logic, allowing set() as an alternative > to set([]) in python code is "premature optimization". That wasn't an optimization -- it was needed for API consistency with other types (i.e. list(), dict(), etc). The zero argument form supports a use case for polymorphic creation of an empty container regardless of type. ---------- assignee: -> rhettinger nosy: +rhettinger _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9120> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
