Tim Peters <tim_one@email.msn.com>: > I can't imagine why > > for in 0 .. len(a)-1: > > isn't *equally* hated! Requiring "-1" in the most common case is simply bad > design. I agree with that. I didn't mean to suggest that I thought it was a good idea. The real problem is in defining a..b to include b, which gives you a construct that is intuitive but not very useful in the context of the rest of the language. On the other hand, if a..b *doesn't* include b, it's more useful, but less intuitive. (By "intuitive" here, I mean "does what you would expect based on your experience with similar notations in other programming languages or in mathematics".) I rather like the a:b idea, because it ties in with the half-open property of slices. Unfortunately, it gives the impression that you should be able to say a = [1,2,3,4,5,6] b = 2:5 c = a[b] and get c == [3,4,5]. > for i = 1 to 10: # 1 to 10 inclusive Endpoint problem again. You would be forever saying for i = 0 to len(a)-1: I do like the idea of keywords, however. All we need to do is find a way of spelling for i = 0 uptobutnotincluding len(a): without running out of breath. Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
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