What's better about Ruby than Python?

Alex Martelli aleaxit at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 19 12:36:02 CEST 2003

Asun Friere wrote:
> Ah yes, back to substance.  I forgot to mention that Ruby ranges seem
> much more intuitive than Python slicing.  But I think the confusion,

Having both a..b AND a...b -- one indicating a half-open range, another
indicating a closed range -- "more intuitive"?  You gotta be kidding...

> to the extent that confusion does exist, is because Python has one
> foot in the C-like 'n-1 indexed array' camp (in relation to ordinary
> indexing of elements), and one in the '0 is not an ordinal, but a
> point of origin,' camp (in relation to splitting). :ducks.

Python's firmly in the "always half-open" field (pioneered in print,
to the best of my knowledge, in A. Koenig's "C Traps and Pitfalls",
and -- no doubt partly thanks to Koenig's influence -- pervasive in
the C++ standard library too).  Not sure where _splitting_ enters
the picture -- you mean, e.g., 'a few words'.split()?  What's THAT
gotta do with intervals, or slices?


More information about the Python-list mailing list