On Sat, 2003-04-12 at 06:25, Guido van Rossum wrote: > [MAL] > > Is this change really necessary ? Instead of changing the semantics > > of range() why not have the byte code compiler optimize it's typical > > usage: > > Right. That's nice, and can be done before 3.0 (as soon as we change > the rules so that adding a 'range' attribute to a module object is > illegal). Well, I plan to look into doing this, just because I think it is an interesting problem and tickles my fancy. I'll report back when I have failed. But at least I'll try to get the ball rolling. :) Chad Netzer
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