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:

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.


On Feb 2, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Neil Girdhar <> wrote:

But it is meaningful to have a range with an unspecified stop.  That's itertools.count.

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
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]
py> "abcdefghi"[s]

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.

Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct:
Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct: