> On 2018 Mar 29 , at 11:42 a, Julia Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> My suggestion is to change the syntax for creating an empty set and an empty
> dictionary as following.
>
> an_empty_set = {}
> an_empty_dictionary = {:}
If you are willing to accept {:} as an empty dict, then surely {,} would
suffice as an empty set, with no backwards compatibility issues at all.
Also, this is also not a new idea
(https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-April/001286.html). I don't
know
if this was never seriously considered further, or if it was formally rejected.
>
> Compatibility issues could be resolved with a program which takes a Python
> program (codes) as a text and edits it.
It's not that simple. This would require changing the vast majority of Python
scripts ever written, including code which has never and will never care about
`set` objects. Depending on the setting would require version-control check-ins
and probably code review. Is cleaning up a minor divergence from mathematical
notation really worth that kind of churn?
--
Clint
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
