> I've heard others doing number theory work, who hoped or expected it to > work, as well. (Typically, they wanted to use HUGE step sizes, for > example) As long as they wanted to use longs, that's fair. E.g. now that we're trying to get rid of the difference between ints and longs, something like range(0, 2**100, 2**99) should really just work (and it better give us [0, 2**99] :-). > In any case, I'll get the patch submitted fairly soon, for range(). > Need to update the tests. Thanks. I had hoped to release beta1 before PyCon, but that's not realistic. But I'll work on it soon after. > I'm also coding an irange() for consideration in the itertools module. > At least an (explicit) replacement for the iteration usage (although, > maybe not necessary if you actually do the lazy-list in "for" loop > change.) If people need the indexing and length operations, too, I can > only suggest a pure python implementation (which could return an > irange() iterator when needed). Is that a dead-end idea, or a starter? That's something for Raymond H. --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