Adding Empty Set Literals to Python

"I thought {@} would be a good for an empty set because it arguably looks like the empty set symbol"<p>I'm just nitpicking but I don't think this is a good justification - If the @ symbol looks like the empty set symbol, then {@} is the set containing the empty set

I personally prefer dict() to {} anyway, so I don't really miss the lack of an empty set literal.<p>Adding a set literal was a slippery slope anyway. Where's my frozenset literal? Where's my namedtuple literal?<p>(I also don't particularly like the {} syntax for dicts, because there is {'too_much': 'quoting'} which I find rather ugly. I much prefer dict(too_much='quoting') or, even better, Perl's solution: { too_much =&#62; 'quoting' }.)

Executive summary: If you don't like part of the language, it is really easy to add your own hack and make it worse ;-)<p>Really, you should trust the core developers on this one. Empty set literals are missing from Python for a reason.

That ain't orthogonality, <i>this</i> is orthogonality:<p><pre><code> dict() = {} set() = &#60;&#62; tuple() = () list() = [] </code></pre> (btw, does anyone actually use `&#60;&#62;` as `!=`?)

I think it would be best if empty dictionary was {:} and empty set was {}. Of course, it would be insane to make this change.

Maybe Guido doesn't like it because it looks weird when compared to the rest of Python's syntax? Still, I think it's cool. Having sets availably without importing anything is one of the things I love about Python.<p>set = &#60;&#62; is still available.

The webfont doesn't load for me because I have Ghostery installed (it blocks remote tracking scripts) so the page is all blank except for the code snippets (because Adobe Typekit is blocked). You should consider adding a fallback font.

&#62; What I learned: It’s not always hard to make interesting changes to large projects.<p>Should be, it's not always hard to make interesting changes <i>to very well-designed and well-architected projects</i>

I vaguely recall seeing a mailing list thread where `{-}` was proposed. I think it was rejected based on parsing ambiguity, i.e. `{-1}` vs `{-}`. (Or it's possible I might be losing my memory)

<p><pre><code> There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.</code></pre>

Is it just me, or is it a little ... obsessive to be <i>this</i> annoyed with having to use `set()` instead of `{@}`?