Paul Rubin: > In 3.0 you may be able to say {,} but there is a contingent that would > just as soon get rid of all that special syntax, so you'd say list() > instead of [], dict() instead of {}, etc.
For Python 3.0 I'd like {} for the empty set and {:} for the empty dict, but that idea was refused time ago, probably for some mental backward compatibility. Missing that, I think dict() and set() and tuple() and list() look better than using {} for the empty dict and {/} for the empty set and () for empty tuple (or {} for the empty dict and set() for the empty set). dict() is a bit more verbose than {}, but it doesn't matter much. With those dict(), set(), tuple(), list() the only little wart left is the unary tuple literal: x, that I don't like much, maybe I'd like tuple to be identified by a pair of delimiters, maybe like [|x|] or something like that as in the Fortress language. I don't know... Bye, bearophile -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list