Here's my other 1p. > The range-literal thing ([:10:2] -> [0,2,4,6,8]) seems to be acceptable, I > believe ? It might 'merely' be syntactic sugar for a builtin, but it's > such pretty sugar ! :-) Let me play devil's advocate to make sure this is fleshed out enough. How's this for obfuscation: [0:10][0:10][0:10] --- And arguing from analogy, shouldn't range(0:bignum)[0:10:2] be [0:10:2] > And it's not possible to shadow the builtin like with range. You probably shouldn't be able to shadow most builtins period. > (Though I have one possible addition to the range syntax: range tuples, like > so: > > (20:10:3) I presume you meant (10:20:3). Right? > They could just generate a rangeobject, like xrange does... That could be a > fair bit of memory savings ;) But I have to admit the syntax isn't as > obvious as [19:15:-1]) I don't follow you here. Anyhow, I like the idea that there should be a syntax that does the rangeobject thing and it makes sense that it needs to be immutable. -- Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. - http://www.cs.yale.edu/~perlis-alan/quotes.html
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