PEP 276 (was Re: Status of PEP's?)

[phil hunt]

On 9 Mar 2002 05:38:20 GMT, Quinn Dunkan <quinn at pfennig.ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:26:48 -0800, James_Althoff at i2.com <James_Althoff at i2.com>
>wrote:
>>Carel,
>>
>>Thanks for the explanation, below.  Very interesting.
>>
>>Yes, I agree with your basic analysis that producing an iterator for an
>>integer makes a lot more sense if one accepts integers as first-class
>>objects.  The fact that Python treats integers as well as everything else
>>as first-class objects is one of the big reasons why I like Python so much.
>
>I have no trouble accepting integers as objects just like any other type, and I
>still don't like iter(5). 

Nor do I, since it bdoes the same thing as range(5) and/or 
xrange(5).

One possibility might be a new looping construct, do:

   do 5:
      print "this will be printed 5 times"

Note that you can't get hold of a do loop's loop variable. This 
would be easy to optimise, I imagine.


-- 
<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically 
advantageous for him to believe." 
                        -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
                              Portillo, on soc.history.what-if