On May 9, 10:11 am, Yves Dorfsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The only thing is, is there is another natural meaning to [a,b:c]. > > > Counting grids on the diagonals, the rational set is well defined: > > > 0: 0, 0 > > 1: 1, 0 > > 2: 0, 1 > > 3: 2, 0 > > 4: 1, 1 > > 5: 0, 2 > > 6: 3, 0 > > 7: 2, 1 > > ... > > > Thencefore ( 2, 0 ) : ( 3, 0 ) is well defined. Thencefore, > > > a,b:c,d > > > is not; x[a,b:c,d]= x[a]+ x[b:c]+ x[d]. > > I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you give me a simple piece of code to > show an example ? > > Yves.http://www.SollerS.ca- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
Yves, sadly, simple piece of code is not the writer's forte. I was merely advising against leaping in to syntax additions, changes even. The point was, even though a,b:c,d is shown ill-defined, a,b:c may not be. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
