On 2 Feb 2015 01:14, "Todd" <toddrjen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Although slices and ranges are used for different things and implemented differently, conceptually they are similar: they define an integer sequence with a start, stop, and step size.  For this reason I think that slices could provide useful syntactic sugar for defining ranges without sacrificing clarity.

Why is this beneficial? We'd be replacing an easily looked up builtin name with relatively cryptic syntax.

There's also the fact that "slice" itself is a builtin, so it's entirely unclear that standalone usage of the slice syntax (if it was ever permitted at all) should produce a range object instead of a slice object.