Alexander Belopolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .. > I don't much like this aspect of the change: there are uses for > > for i in range(ridiculously_large_number):
For this application, I would use "for i in itertools.count():" instead. The only caveat is that while count() lets you specify the start, it does not provide for a step. If that is a problem, I would rather add step to count(). __________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2690> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
