Status of PEP's?

[James_Althoff at i2.com]

[James_Althoff]
>
> if I want to iterate up (smaller up to larger) I need to
> write the for-loop as
>     for smaller <= i <= larger:  # can *only* iterate up
> but if I want to iterate down (larger down to smaller) I need to write
the
> for-loop with the reverse relational operators
>     for larger >= i >= smaller:  # can *only* iterate down

[Greg Ewing]
> Sorry, I missed that you wanted the order of iteration
> to be variable. You're right, but I don't see that as
> a major disadvantage. The vast majority of all for-loops
> over integers that I write have a fixed iteration order.
> In the rare cases that I wanted otherwise, I'd be
> quite happy to write the loop another way.

I guess it depends on the type of loops in the given application.  I hit it
right away when I was playing around with my experimental implementation of
the "for i in 0 <= ints <= x:" variant.

I just thought this should be noted as a limitation of any approach that
uses relational operators.

Jim