On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Brice PARENT <contact@brice.xyz> wrote:
Le 30/03/17 à 19:06, Markus Meskanen a écrit :
And like I said before, for loop is just another way of doing while loop, yet nobody's complaining. There's nothing wrong with having two different ways of doing the same thing, as long as one of them is never the better way. If we add `repeat`, there's never a reason to use `for _ in range` anymore.
It doesn't always creates something easier to use, like for example : `for _ in range(x, y, z)` (fixed or variable parameters) `for _ in one_list` (saves a call to len() with your solution) `for _ in any_other_kind_of_iterable` (we don't need to know the length here, we may even use a generator)
Your first example:
`for _ in range(x, y, z)`
Makes little sense, since there's still a fixed amount of steps and normal range(x) could just be used instead. As a matter of fact, it can be replaced with either of these, arguably `repeat_for` version being cleaner: for _ in range((y-x+1)//z) repeat_for (y - x + 1) // z And in that one *extremely* unlikely and rare scenario where someone really does need range() with variable start, stop, and step, and doesn't need the returned variable, he can freely still use `for _ in range`. This won't remove it. Your other two examples:
`for _ in one_list` `for _ in any_other_kind_of_iterable`
Aren't related to the syntax I'm proposing, you even quoted this part yourself:
there's never a reason to use `for _ in range` anymore.
But your examples don't use range() to begin with.