> On 2018 Mar 29 , at 11:42 a, Julia Kim <julia.hiyeon....@gmail.com> 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 Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/