On Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:26:01 PM UTC-7, Ian wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Andrew wrote: > > > Hi Ian, > > > Well, no it really isn't equivalent. > > > Consider a programmer who writes: > > > xrange(-4,3) *wants* [-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2] > > > > > > That is the "idea" of a range; for what reason would anyone *EVER* want -4 > > to +3 to be 6:3??? > > > > That is what ranges do, but your question was about slices, not ranges.
Actually, I said in the OP: "I also don't understand why slice() is not equivalent to an iterator, but can replace an integer in __getitem__() whereas xrange() can't." ========================= Thank you for the code snippet; I don't think it likely that existing programs depend on nor use a negative index and a positive index expecting to take a small chunk in the center... hence, I would return the whole array; Or if someone said [-len(listX) : len(listX)+1 ] I would return the whole array twice. That's the maximum that is possible. If someone could show me a normal/reasonable script which *would* expect the other behavior, I'd like to know; compatibility is important. ========================= My intended inferences about the iterator vs. slice question was perhaps not obvious to you; Notice: an iterator is not *allowed* in __getitem__(). The slice class when passed to __getitem__() was created to merely pass two numbers and a stride to __getitem__; As far as I know slice() itself does *nothing* in the actual processing of the elements. So, it's *redundant* functionality, and far worse, it's restrictive. The philosophy of Python is to have exactly one way to do something when possible; so, why create a stand alone class that does nothing an existing class could already do, and do it better ? A simple list of three values would be just as efficient as slice()! xrange is more flexible, and can be just as efficient. So, Have I misunderstood the operation of slice()? I think I might have... but I don't know. In 'C', where Python is written, circularly linked lists -- and arrays are both very efficient ways of accessing data. Arrays can, in fact, have negative indexes -- perhaps contrary to what you thought. One merely defines a variable to act as the base pointer to the array and initialize it to the *end* of the array. Nor is the size of the data elements an issue, since in Python all classes are accessed by pointers which are of uniform size. I routinely do this in C. Consider, also, that xrange() does not actually create a list -- but merely an iterator generating integers which is exactly what __getitem__ works on. So, xrange() does not need to incur a memory or noticeable time penalty. >From micro-python, it's clear that their implementation of xrange() is at the >'C' level; which is extremely fast. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
