Status of PEP's?

Jeff Shannon jeff at ccvcorp.com
Mon Mar 4 13:56:40 EST 2002


Greg Ewing wrote:

> David Eppstein wrote:
> >
> > I was starting to think it might be time to write a PEP,
> > but then Tim's comment about how he dislikes iterating over 3
> > discouraged me.
>
> Bjorn is talking about "for x < i < y", though, which
> is a different proposal from the one about iterating
> over 3. I think they deserve to be judged separately.

I believe that Tim's comment was regarding how "for 3 < i < 10" would be
parsed.  I vaguely recall a discussion, from the first time around, that the
parser will grab "for 3" and then choke on the rest.  It would require
significant modifications to the parser to have it read the entire line and
then analyze it.  This amount of work has been deemed not justifiable for the
(questionable) benefits of having this construct.

Of course, this is my vague memories, and could be totally wrong.  Having a
PEP to archive things like this would be nice (even though I'd be hoping that
it gets rejected).

Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International





More information about the Python-list mailing list