On 02/02/2015 11:19, Todd wrote:

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Todd <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