Guido van Rossum wrote: > > ... > 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. If Guido has decided that the design that has already been implemented is the right one, what's the point of the PEP? Someone just needs to review the patch and check it in! -- 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