[Tim\
All strides start the same way, by (conceptually) selecting s[i:j] first. Then the stride is applied to that contiguous slice, starting with the first element and taking every abs(k) element thereafter. Finally, if k is negative, that sequence is reversed. k=1, k=-1, k=2, k=-2, ..., all the same.
[Terry]
I think this is wrong. Conceptually reverse first, if indicated by negative stride, then select: see my previous post for my rationale, and below.
I already replied to your previous post, and agreed with you :-)
... I think that [::k] should continue to work as it does. I believe Guido only suggested deprecating negative strides with non-default endpoints, which implies negative strides *with* default endpoints should continue as are. We should not break more than necessary.
Take "yes" for an answer ;-)
... Did you notice that Guido titled this thread "Where did we go wrong with negative stride?".;-)
I did,
And did you notice that I posed that question to someone else? ;-)
and I explained exactly where I thing we went wrong, which was to make the interpretation of i and j depend on the sign of k. Undoing this does not mandate B instead of A.
Agreed.