Status of PEP's?

[David Eppstein]

In article <inaq7u8ca9rpgb21s5tgg3dgnqjerv7a0p at 4ax.com>,
 Gonçalo Rodrigues <op73418 at mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

> Anyone knows how is the "acceptance status" of the following PEP's, that
> is, is there any idea if they will be accepted for the next Python
> realease:
> 
> PEP 276: Iterator for ints.
> (I really love this one - as simple and "obvious" as it gets)

I don't know an answer to your question, but in contrast to your opinion, 
I really dislike this one.  It gives a very nonintuitive meaning for
"x in y" when both are integers (equivalent to "x <= 0 < y"), and that 
meaning would hold in all contexts, not just for-loops -- I would much 
prefer that such expressions get flagged as likely coding error and that 
more explicit syntax be required to create integer ranges.  I think there 
should be a better syntax for for-loops over integers, but this isn't it.

(See earlier discussion of PEP276 in this group for proposed alternatives, 
I don't want to repeat the whole same discussion again here.)
-- 
David Eppstein       UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
eppstein at ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/