On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 08:00:33AM -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > is there any special reason why we cannot use colon instead > > of "for"? > Would conflict with the proposed syntax for range literals. Both > > [0:10] > > and > [x : x in seq] > have the same syntactical form. Much, much worse: the latter *is* a range literal. It's not likely to produce anything useful, depending on 'x', but it is a valid range literal. (It'll create a range from 'x' to '0', if 'x' is not in 'seq', or '1', if 'x' is in 'seq', using step 1.) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
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