Tim Peters writes:
> As the reviewer, I spent about 2 hours playing with it, trying it out in my
> code. And I simply liked it less the more I used it
That's 2 hours more than I (and probably most other people) spent
trying it out.
> For 2.0, the question is solely yes-or-no on this specific notation. If it
> goes in, it will never go away.
This strikes me as an extremely strong argument. If the advantages
aren't really all that clear, then adopting this syntax for range
literals now removes the possibility to come up with a better way at a
later date ("opportunity cost", as the economists say).
The Haskell examples you shared are pretty neat.
FWIW, I retract my earlier +1.
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