Status of PEP's?
Bjorn Pettersen
BPettersen at NAREX.com
Thu Feb 28 13:53:14 EST 2002
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Thu Feb 28 13:53:14 EST 2002
- Previous message (by thread): Status of PEP's?
- Next message (by thread): Status of PEP's?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> From: Courageous [mailto:jkraska at san.rr.com] > > > for i in len(mylist): > > > >Creates an iterator over the indices in mylist. > > I just don't think so. It would be better to have something > which behaves slightly more like a classic for form. This > could almost be achieved by some sort of first class range > object thusly. In fact, one might even use slice notation: > > for i in [0:len(mylist):1]: > > ... where the stride is optional of course. And exactly this notation has been rejected in PEP 204 -- basically because it's butt-ugly in a Perl'ish sort of way. Besides, this goes under the section of solving the "interval" problem which PEP 276 *explicitly* says it is not doing (and which I personally don't find very compelling, especially if PEP 276 is adopted). -- bjorn
- Previous message (by thread): Status of PEP's?
- Next message (by thread): Status of PEP's?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list