2 Feb
2015
2 Feb
'15
4:10 a.m.
On 02/02/2015 11:19, Todd wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com mailto:rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Todd <toddrjen@gmail.com <mailto:toddrjen@gmail.com>> wrote: > First, it wouldn't be a replacement. The existing range syntax would still > exist. > > But the reason it is beneficial is the same reason we have [a, b, c] for > list, {a:1, b:2, c:3} for dicts, {a, b, c} for sets, and (a, b, c) for > tuples.
Well, we have to have *some* syntax for literal lists, dicts etc. But we already have range, so there is no compelling need to add new syntax.
Having said that, I would have a sneaking admiration for a really concise syntax. Perhaps if we had "Python without colons", we could write for i in 1 : 10 for i in 1 : 10 : 2