On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 9:49 AM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 23:35, <joao.p.f.batista...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Currently:
> > l = [] # new empty list
> > t = () # new empty tuple
> > s = set() # new empty set (no clean and consistent way of initializing
> regarding the others) <<<
> > d = {} # new empty dictionary
> >
> > Possible solution:
> > s = {} # new empty set
> > d = {:} # new empty dictionary (the ":" is a reference to key-value
> pairs)
>
> Nope, that would break tons of existing code. Not gonna happen.
>
Of couse not. (And I mean it).
- but what about keeping what exists and adding {,} for an empty set?
(it is not that unlike the one-element tuple, which already exists)
>
> ChrisA
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/PCPZPHCNXOW6ADAOUXY25MTRDNXI4EQI/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/LLS7SPT4XHLDCSHHKK3ZKXTHKA4R2LMV/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
