> Hmm. I'd rather not endure the resulting complaints without a > strong rationale for deprecating it. One that strikes close to my > heart: there's more code in 2.2 to support xrange than there is to > support generators! But users don't care about that. But I do, and historically this code has often been bug-ridden without anybody noticing -- so it's not like it's needed much. I would suggest to remove most of the fancy features of xrange(), in particular the slice, contains and repeat slots. A step further would be to remove getitem also, and add a tp_getiter slot instead -- returning not itself but a new iterator that iterates through the prescribed sequence. We need a PEP for this. Anyone? Should be short and sweet. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.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