On Aug 17, 12:41 pm, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote: > There's a lot of things in Python that I don't strictly *need*. That > doesn't mean that they wouldn't be welcome if I could have them. > Getting rid of the range/xrange dichotomy would improve things. Yes, I > can work around it until the runtime is good enough to let me think > about an *interesting* problem instead.
You don't have to think about using xrange in a for loop, you just always use it. > That makes it a legitimate > complaint in my eyes. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but do you > have an argument more compelling than the one you give here? I am not arguing in favor of range/xrange, I am saying that it's silly to complain that the compiler isn't a whole lot more complex than it is just so it can implemnent a semantically-diconnected special case just so that you can avoid typing an extra "x". The cost doesn't even remotely justify it. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
