Guido van Rossum wrote:
We've been bikeshedding long enough. I propose to do the following to range() in Python 3.3:
- add read-only attributes .start, .step, .stop
+1
- add slicing such that it normalizes .stop to .start + the right
multiple of .step
Already in place.
- add __eq__ and __hash__ which compare by .start, .step, .stop
-1
--> lst1 = [x for x in [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] if x % 3 == 0] --> lst2 = [x for x in [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] if x % 3 == 0] --> lst3 = [x for x in [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] if x % 3 == 0] --> lst1 [0, 3, 6, 9] --> lst2 [0, 3, 6, 9] --> lst3 [0, 3, 6, 9] --> lst1 == lst2 == lst3 True
A range is a sequence -- why should identical sequences not compare equal? If you have a case where the start, stop, and step do make a difference then that should be the special case where you write your own custom code.
Mike Graham wrote:
For equality and comparison, this should be the standard. range objects are sequences, and they should compare just like other sequences. If implemented at all, equality should be that they have the same items in the same order.
+1
~Ethan~