> On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Greg Ewing wrote: > > > > for (x in a, y in b): > > ... No, for exactly the reasons Ping explained. Let's give this a rest okay? > I would much rather petition now to get indices() and irange() into > the built-ins... please pretty please? I forget what indices() was -- is it the moreal equivalent of keys()? That's range(len(s)), I don't see a need for a new function. In fact I think indices() would reduce readability because you have to guess what it means. Everybody knows range() and len(); not everybody will know indices() because it's not needed that often. If irange(s) is zip(range(len(s)), s), I see how that's a bit unwieldy. In the past there were syntax proposals, e.g. ``for i indexing s''. Maybe you and Just can draft a PEP? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4