RetroSearch Browse

Sat Jun 18 21:54:00 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-June/054329.html

On 6/18/05, Michael Hudson <mwh at python.net> wrote:
> "Raymond Hettinger" <raymond.hettinger at verizon.net> writes:
> 
> > I recommend that the proposed syntax be altered to be more parallel
> > with the existing for-loop syntax to make it more parsable for both
> > humans and for the compiler.
> 
> Although all your suggestions are improvments, I'm still -1 on the PEP.

Same here. The whole point (15 years ago) of range() was to *avoid*
needing syntax to specify a loop over numbers. I think it's worked out
well and there's nothing that needs to be fixed (except range() needs
to become an interator, which it will in Python 3.0).

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-June/054329.html below:

[Python-Dev] Propose updating PEP 284 -- Integer for-loops