[Python-3000] No Container Literals

[Georg Brandl]

Calvin Spealman wrote:
> On 7/8/06, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:
>> Calvin Spealman wrote:
>> > Just throwing this out there, but I would love to see a complete
>> > dropping of container literals from Python. That is why I proposed the
>> > coercion syntax (ex: list from something) because it would allow
>> > things like list(1, 2, 3) and we can already do dict(ten=10,
>> > eleven=11), so what is the real need for literals as they are? With
>> > some proper compiler optimization we can deduce if list, dict, and
>> > such are in fact bound to the builtins we know, and build literals
>> > from these expressions just the same, but I feel they seem much more
>> > readable, and allow better addition of more literal compilations (set
>> > literals are fixed then, for example). I know no one will like this,
>> > but I have to make the idea known anyway.
>>
>> -1. List and dict displays are a great feature of the language. Why throw
>> them out just because of purism?
>>
>> How would you spell {1: 2} with your syntax?
> 
> dict(1=2) could be allowed, with additional syntax rules.

So dict() would be special-cased. What's the difference to {}, then?

Or do you propose to allow arbitrary objects as keyword argument *names*
for *every function*?

If so, how would one distinguish
     dict(a=1) as in {"a": 1}
and
     dict(a=1) as in {a: 1}
?

Georg