Please go read PEP 204, as Nick suggested. It would be nice if there was
more Kongo as to why it was rejected, but it was, indeed, rejected.
I also recall a lot of drawn out threads about more compact syntax for a
for loop over integers, such as making the integer object iterable:
for I in 10:
pass
Which were also all rejected.
Unless someone comes up with a compelling argument that something has
changed, it seems this conversation has been had already.
-Chris
On Feb 2, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Neil Girdhar
On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 04:13:32PM +0100, Todd 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.
I'm afraid that you are mistaken. Slices do not necessarily define integer sequences. They are completely arbitrary, and it is up to the object being sliced to interpret what is or isn't valid and what the slice means.
py> class K(object): ... def __getitem__(self, i): ... print(i) ... py> K()["abc":(2,3,4):{}] slice('abc', (2, 3, 4), {})
In addition, the "stop" argument to a slice may be unspecified until it it applied to a specific sequence, while range always requires stop to be defined.
py> s = slice(1, None, 2) py> "abcde"[s] 'bd' py> "abcdefghi"[s] 'bdfh'
It isn't meaningful to define a range with an unspecified stop, but it is meaningful to do so for slices.
In other words, the similarity between slices and ranges is not as close as you think.
-- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python...@python.org javascript: https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/