Thoughts on PEP284
eppstein at ics.uci.edu
Tue Sep 23 06:00:32 CEST 2003
In article <SnObb.1581$PT3.257319 at news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Sean Ross" <sross at connectmail.carleton.ca> wrote:
> > Some more looping thoughts - this time on integer for loops...
> How about the following:
> for i in 0...10:
> # suite
> where 0...10 works something like xrange(10).
I can't find the message you're replying to, so am responding here only
I personally am uninterested in an integer for-loop syntax that is
limited to the unintuitiveness of range and xrange's arguments --
they're great for looping forwards through the indices into a list, not
so great for almost anything else. If that's all the loop syntax can
do, why not just keep the current "for i in range(10):" syntax?
"Explicit is better than implicit."
But anyway, PEP 284 has been kind of moribund since Guido dissed it in
his Parade of PEPs. I'm not sure what (if anything) it would take to
revive it, but convoluted syntax like "for i in 0...10.by(2):" is
probably not it. "for i in 0:10:2:" would be more Pythonic, but has a
little ambiguity problem ("for i in 0:10:2" without the colon seems like
it should execute the statement "2" ten times) and again doesn't add
much in readability or power to what we can already do with range.
David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
More information about the Python-list