> Unfortunately, Python simply doesn't have enough symbols available.
> Using precisely one opener/closer for each type is highly limiting,
> since the only characters available are those on a US-English keyboard
> and in the ASCII set. It would be nice if, for instance, ∅ could mean
> "new empty
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 00:31, David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> I just do this myself in my text editor (vim):
>
>
> But this is just cosmetic because I like to look at it this way. The actual
> file on disk contains `set()`, `<=`, `in`, `not in` and wouldn't be a problem
> for anyone without the
I just do this myself in my text editor (vim):
[image: sets-py.png]
But this is just cosmetic because I like to look at it this way. The
actual file on disk contains `set()`, `<=`, `in`, `not in` and wouldn't be
a problem for anyone without the same fonts installed, or require anyone to
know odd
On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 at 23:19, Stéfane Fermigier wrote:
>
> The “correct” (according to Bourbaki) mathematical notation for an empty set
> is “∅" (aka Unicode U+2205, or HTML )
>
> Some time ago, for a project which had a lot of empty sets, I tried to use
> this symbol as a short hand for set().
Hmm, I think the idea of the mathematical symbol is interesting, but I
think users are more interested in constructing a new, eventually-not-empty
set, than referencing the empty set.
Semantically, I don't know if ∅() is satisfying.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 08:19 Stéfane Fermigier wrote:
> The
The “correct” (according to Bourbaki) mathematical notation for an empty
set is “∅" (aka Unicode U+2205, or HTML )
Some time ago, for a project which had a lot of empty sets, I tried to use
this symbol as a short hand for set(). But:
>>> ⦰ = set()
File "", line 1
⦰ = set()
^
14.03.22 15:07, Joao S. O. Bueno пише:
- but what about keeping what exists and adding {,} for an empty set?
(it is not that unlike the one-element tuple, which already exists)
If you want to create an empty set without using any identifier, use
{*()}. The advantage is that it works in old
Do you know what else would work for being able
to enter empty sets?
A prefix to {} , like "s"
a = s{}
and
b = f{}
for an empty frozenset
(/me ducks, and hides in a place Chris won't find me)
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:29 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 00:07, Joao S. O.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 00:07, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 9:49 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 23:35, wrote:
>> >
>> > Currently:
>> > l = [] # new empty list
>> > t = () # new empty tuple
>> > s = set() # new empty set (no clean and consistent
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 9:49 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 23:35, 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:33 AM wrote:
> Possible solution:
> s = {} # new empty set
> d = {:} # new empty dictionary (the ":" is a reference to key-value pairs)
>
I have suggested over the years—as have probably dozens of other people
(maybe thousands)—that that would be a great spelling if
On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 23:35, 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 = {:}
12 matches
Mail list logo
