Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.001 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'sufficient': 0.05; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'literal': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'rejected': 0.09; 'subject:language': 0.09; 'jan': 0.12; 'benefit.': 0.16; 'dictionaries': 0.16; 'forty': 0.16; 'is;': 0.16; 'notation': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'reedy': 0.16; 'scratch': 0.16; 'set,': 0.16; 'subject: \n ': 0.16; 'subject:?)': 0.16; 'subject:unicode': 0.16; 'language': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; '3.0': 0.19; 'things.': 0.19; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'header:X -Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'point': 0.28; 'chris': 0.29; 'am,': 0.29; 'sets': 0.30; 'code': 0.31; 'easier': 0.31; '25,': 0.31; 'breaking': 0.31; 'operators': 0.31; 'probably': 0.32; "i'd": 0.34; 'but': 0.35; 'too': 0.37; 'mine': 0.38; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'little': 0.38; 'short': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'read': 0.60; 'new': 0.61; 'received:173': 0.61; 'more': 0.64; 'mar': 0.68; 'subject:this': 0.83; 'dict.': 0.84; 'received:fios.verizon.net': 0.84 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Terry Reedy Subject: Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:39:54 -0400 References: <9daf0806-02de-4447-964c-c8f8953c23e5@googlegroups.com> <532d5bd9$0$29994$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <0b78649a-16b3-4410-8258-e859578d62be@googlegroups.com> <53311887$0$2756$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com> <8b4fd4f8-f626-4b0d-8bda-6b6813ca7403@googlegroups.com> <592062d8-37a1-4f80-a9db-b3b17a6215b9@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-173-75-254-207.phlapa.fios.verizon.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1395787227 news.xs4all.nl 2854 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:52431 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:69078 On 3/25/2014 2:50 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Rustom Mody wr= ote: >> ALl of which is isomorphic to Steven's point that forty is less >> eyeballable than 40 >> >> And mine that =E2=88=85 is more eyeballable than set([]) > > I don't disagree that it is; the short tokens are easier to read in > quantity. I just don't think that it's sufficient to justify piles of > new and hard-to-look-up operators and things. (And a literal notation > for an empty set would be a good thing. If I were designing a > Python-like language from scratch now, I'd probably differentiate sets > and dictionaries better, which would allow each one to have its own > empty literal.) If {} were empty set, {:} would be empty dict. This was considered but=20 rejected for 3.0 as breaking too much code for too little benefit. --=20 Terry Jan Reedy