I'm stifling it, but, FWIW, I've been trying to sell "indexing" for most of
my adult life <wink -- but yes, in my experience too range(len(seq)) is
extraordinarly hard to get across to newbies at first; and I *expect*
[:len(seq)] to be at least as hard>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nowonder@stud.ntnu.no [mailto:nowonder@stud.ntnu.no]On Behalf Of
> Peter Schneider-Kamp
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 4:06 AM
> To: Tim Peters
> Cc: python-dev@python.org
> Subject: Re: indexing, indices(), irange(), list.items() (was RE:
> [Python-Dev] Lockstep iteration - eureka!)
>
>
> Tim Peters wrote:
> >
> > Note that Guido rejected all the loop-gimmick proposals ("indexing",
> > indices(), irange(), and list.items()) on Thursday, so let's stifle this
> > debate until after 2.0 (or, even better, until after I'm dead <wink>).
>
> That's sad. :-/
>
> One of the reasons I implemented .items() is that I wanted
> to increase the probability that at least *something* is
> available instead of:
>
> for i in range(len(list):
> e = list[i]
> ...
>
> or
>
> for i, e in zip(range(len(list)), list):
> ...
>
> I'm going to teach Python to a lot of newbies (ca. 30) in
> October. From my experience (I already tried my luck on two
> individuals from that group) 'range(len(list))' is one
> of the harder concepts to get across. Even indices(list)
> would help here.
>
> Peter
> --
> Peter Schneider-Kamp ++47-7388-7331
> Herman Krags veg 51-11 mailto:peter@schneider-kamp.de
> N-7050 Trondheim http://schneider-kamp.de
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