On 29 August 2000, Ka-Ping Yee said:
> I think these examples are beautiful. There is no reason why we couldn't
> fit something like this into Python. Imagine this:
>
> - The ".." operator produces a tuple (or generator) of integers.
> It should probably have precedence just above "in".
>
> - "a .. b", where a and b are integers, produces the sequence
> of integers (a, a+1, a+2, ..., b).
>
> - If the left argument is a tuple of two integers, as in
> "a, b .. c", then we get the sequence of integers from
> a to c with step b-a, up to and including c if c-a happens
> to be a multiple of b-a (exactly as in Haskell).
I guess I haven't been paying much attention, or I would have squawked
at the idea of using *anything* other than ".." for a literal range.
> If this operator existed, we could then write:
>
> for i in 2, 4 .. 20:
> print i
>
> for i in 1 .. 10:
> print i*i
Yup, beauty. +1 on this syntax. I'd vote to scuttle the [1..10] patch
and wait for an implementation of The Right Syntax, as illustrated by Ping.
> for i in 0 ..! len(a):
> a[i] += 1
Ugh. I agree with everythone else on this: why not "0 .. len(a)-1"?
Greg
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