> Here's another sweet and short PEP. What do folks think? Is
> xrange()'s complexity really worth having?
>
> --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
>
> PEP: 260
> Title: Simplify xrange()
> Version: $Revision: 1.1 $
> Author: guido@python.org (Guido van Rossum)
> Status: Draft
> Type: Standards Track
> Python-Version: 2.2
> Created: 26-Jun-2001
> Post-History: 26-Jun-2001
>
> Abstract
>
> This PEP proposes to strip the xrange() object from some rarely
> used behavior like x[i:j] and x*n.
>
>
> Problem
>
> The xrange() function has one idiomatic use:
>
> for i in xrange(...): ...
If this is to be done, I would also propose that xrange() and range() be
changed to allow passing in a straight-out sequence such as in the following
code in order to get rid of the need for range(len(seq)):
import __builtin__
def range (start, stop=None, step=1, range=range):
""""""
start2 = start
stop2 = stop
if stop is None:
stop2 = start
start2 = 0
try:
return range(start2, stop2, step)
except TypeError:
assert stop is None
return range(len(start))
def xrange (start, stop=None, step=1, xrange=xrange):
""""""
start2 = start
stop2 = stop
if stop is None:
stop2 = start
start2 = 0
try:
return xrange(start2, stop2, step)
except TypeError:
assert stop is None
return xrange(len(start))
a = [5, 'a', 'Hello, world!']
b = range(a)
c = xrange(4, 6)
d = xrange(b)
e = range(c)
print a
print b
print c
print d
print e
print range(d, 2)
Tim Delaney
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