RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jan 27 05:21:19 CET 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-January/132115.html

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>
> That is, I'm OK with either not backporting anything at all, or
> backporting the full change. The only idea I object to is the one of
> removing the infinite iteration capability without providing a
> replacement spelling for it.
>

Is repeat('a') (omitting times argument) not a replacement spelling for it?

What about this alternative? Makes -1 consistently mean unlimited
repetition and other negative numbers consistently mean zero
repetitions then document this behaviour. Just throwing suggestion. I
am not so keen to it, though.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-January/132115.html below:

[Python-Dev] Negative times behaviour in itertools.repeat for Python maintenance releases (2.7, 3.3 and maybe 3.4)