kirubakaran at gmail.com
Fri May 6 23:26:14 CEST 2011
How about range(10**6) ?
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Kirubakaran <kirubakaran at gmail.com> wrote:
> How about range(10**60) ?
> - Kirubakaran.
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:06:18 +0200
>> "dag.odenhall at gmail.com"
>> <dag.odenhall at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 6 May 2011 19:51, Matt Chaput <
>> matt-KKMwxO2wslj3fQ9qLvQP4Q at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> > > Not sure if this has been proposed before: A syntax change to allow
>> > > underscores as thousands separators in literal numbers to improve
>> > > readability, e.g.:
>> > >
>> > > for i in range(1, 1_000_000):
>> > > pass
>> > >
>> > > I believe D allows this and while it's a small thing it really is much
>> > > readable.
>> > Ruby too.
>> > You could also use e-notation: 1e6, in your example. In many
>> > situations it's even more readable because you don't need to "count
>> > the zeros". This is already supported in Python.
>> Yes, but it gives a float, not an integer:
>> >>> for i in range(0, 1e6): pass
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
>> TypeError: 'float' object cannot be interpreted as an integer
>> Python-ideas mailing list
>> Python-ideas at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-ideas