Schüle Daniel wrote:
>> {:} for empty dict and {} for empty set don't look too much atrocious
>> to me.
>
> this looks consistent to me
Yes, a lot of people liked this approach, but it was rejected due to
gratuitous breakage. While Python 3.0 is not afraid to break backwards
compatibility, it tries to do so only when there's a very substantial
advantage. I guess enough people felt that having a shortcut for set()
was less important than keeping the current spelling of dict() the same.
STeVe
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
