>>>>> "TW" == Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> writes:
TW> As I already wrote Barry, I'll do this one -- but only if it's
TW> a no-brainer. The patch is already written and I hadn't heard
TW> complaints about the syntax, but now I hear some rumbling
TW> about how it should be a generator instead of a list
TW> constructor. I don't feel like digging into that particular
TW> dungball, though, having no experience what so ever with
TW> iterators, generators or languages that implement those. (So
TW> I'm a C and Python programmar by heart. Sue me.)
TW> That isn't to say I think it's a bad idea, not at all. I just
TW> don't want to do it :-) But if anyone else wants to implement
TW> it, and do so before 2.0, yell now, and you can take over the
TW> entire range-literal thing as well.
Thomas, it would be wonderful if you could write up what you already
know about range literals. Feel free to sprinkle `TBD's (to be done,
or to be decided) in places you're uncomfortable about. We'll worry
about filling those in or re-assigning later.
-Barry
P.S. I'd rather use TBD than XXX as is the Dutch convention. The USA
is much more prudish than the Europeans, and I'd hate for our PEPs to
get blocked from all those Python 8 year olds accessing our documents
from the public libraries. :)
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