> As I already wrote Barry, I'll do this one -- but only if it's a no-brainer. > The patch is already written and I hadn't heard complaints about the syntax, > but now I hear some rumbling about how it should be a generator instead of a > list constructor. I don't feel like digging into that particular dungball, > though, having no experience what so ever with iterators, generators or > languages that implement those. (So I'm a C and Python programmar by heart. > Sue me.) It should be sweet and simple. Make it return a list, just like range(). The whole point is that an optimizer can recognize that you are doing "for i in [0:10]: ...", and use a generator anyway -- but that's a thing for later to implement. Also, don't bother with (::) to return an xrange as has been proposed. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://dinsdale.python.org/~guido/)
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