RetroSearch Browse

Sat Jun 18 22:34:20 CEST 2005 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-June/054330.html

 [Raymond Hettinger]
> > > I recommend that the proposed syntax be altered to be more
parallel
> > > with the existing for-loop syntax to make it more parsable for
both
> > > humans and for the compiler.

[Michael Hudson]
> > Although all your suggestions are improvments, I'm still -1 on the
PEP.

[Guido]
> Same here. The whole point (15 years ago) of range() was to *avoid*
> needing syntax to specify a loop over numbers. I think it's worked out
> well and there's nothing that needs to be fixed (except range() needs
> to become an interator, which it will in Python 3.0).

I concur.

Saying that no form of the idea is viable will save the PEP authors from
another round or two of improvements.

Marking as rejected and noting why.

Raymond

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-June/054330.html below:

[Python-Dev] Propose updating PEP 284 -- Integer for-loops