<div>Okay this is pretty embarrassing for me, as I totally didn't get that it was a joke. Aware of the fact that I am speaking to a group of much more experienced people, I humbly submit to you all that I still think starting at 1 makes more sense. From a "natural semantics" perspective I mean, not from a mathematical one. Zero is not a natural concept for the human mind. You don't say "Well, I flew on an airplane for the zeroth time today!" or "Bachelor number 0, what's your idea of a perfect date?". Back to the Future, Back to the Future I, Back to the Future II? Nope.</div>
<div><br></div>Sal<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Joshua Herman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zitterbewegung@gmail.com">zitterbewegung@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Something like<div>List = [1 , 2 , 3 , 4]</div><div>traverse n in List:</div><div> n = n + 1</div><div>Would return</div><div><br></div><div>[2,3,4,5]</div><div><br></div><div>This is really syntactic sugar for</div>
<div><br></div><div>map(lambda x: x=x+1, List)</div><div> </div><div><div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div>On Sep 10, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Tal Liron wrote:</div><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" style="direction:ltr">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On 09/10/2011 05:20 PM, Joshua Herman wrote:<blockquote type="cite"><pre>When I first learned python I thought lists were linked lists having
com e from a Lisp background. Although, what is probably most likely
that python could do is introduce a LinkedList class and keep the name
of Lists.
</pre></blockquote>Python has a lot of features inspired by functional languages: sequences, generators and (rather enervated) lambdas. I think the "for" and "yield" keywords support these very naturally and transparently for beginners and advanced programmers alike.<br>
<br>Of course, we can all implement LinkedLists, etc., on our own via classes and functions. What I'm personally missing in Python is a natural syntax for iteration and traversal, as natural as "for" is. This traversal would be able to handle everything from singly-linked lists, through double-linked lists, to graphs and hypergraphs. And, at the other end, something like "yield" that can cleanly generate these traversable structures.<br>
<br>Time for a PEP?<br><br>-Tal<br></div></div><div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>Chicago mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Chicago@python.org" target="_blank">Chicago@python.org</a><br><a href="http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago" target="_blank">http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago</a></div>
</div></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Chicago mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Chicago@python.org">Chicago@python.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago" target="_blank">http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>