PEP 284, Integer for-loops
philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk
Thu Mar 7 01:31:57 CET 2002
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:37:17 -0700, Bjorn Pettersen <BPettersen at NAREX.com> wrote:
>> From: David Eppstein [mailto:eppstein at ics.uci.edu]
>> Subject: PEP 284, Integer for-loops
>Thanks for writing the PEP.
>I see this as a general proposal for a range syntax, and I disagree with
> - it doesn't handle the general range issues, i.e. step value,
> and if we had to add yet another syntax to get general ranges
> it would be too confusing.
> - I would like range objects to be first class, ie. I would want
> to be able to pass ranges to functions, return them from
> functions, and do all the other things one can do with first
> class objects. This proposal only adds syntactic sugar to the
> for loop.
What is wrong with using the existing range() and xrange()?
<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically
advantageous for him to believe."
-- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
Portillo, on soc.history.what-if
More information about the Python-list