On Wednesday 24 April 2002 03:37 pm, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Greg Ewing wrote:
> > There doesn't seem to be any single English word that
> > captures all of what we mean without ambiguity.
>
> How about "indices"? You use a key to get things out of dictionaries.
> You use an index to get things out of sequences. "indices" is the pural
> of index.
Yes, but it's a noun, not a verb. Again, I don't understand why this
type's name should be a verb, but apparently that's the Decision --
we're only being consulted on "which verb".
Apart from this, "indices" suggests you're getting ONLY indices --
while when you iterate on this type you get indices AND contents.
In other words, name "indices" might be fine for a hypothetical
different type, for usage such as:
for i in indices(mysequence):
x = mysequence[i]
# etc
rather than the current:
for i in xrange(len(mysequence)):
x = mysequence[i]
# etc
but the type RH and I implemented (not without help from GvR in
fixing the mess I'd made of GC &c:-) is to be used differently:
for i, x in mysterynamegoeshere(mysequence_or_other_iterator):
# just the etc -- x, the i-th value, is already in hand
Alex
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