On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:57:40 PM UTC-7, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 01/04/2016 23:44, sohcahto...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:10:51 PM UTC-7, Michael Okuntsov wrote: > >> Nevermind. for j in range(1,8) should be for j in range(8). > > > > I can't tell you how many times I've gotten bit in the ass with that > > off-by-one mistake whenever I use a range that doesn't start at zero. > > > > I know that if I want to loop 10 times and I either want to start at zero > > or just don't care about the actual number, I use `for i in range(10)`. > > But if I want to loop from 10 to 20, my first instinct is to write `for i > > in range(10, 20)`, and then I'm left figuring out why my loop isn't > > executing the last step. > > > > "First instinct"? "I expected"? The Python docs might not be perfect, > but they were certainly adequate enough to get me going 15 years ago, > and since then they've improved. So where is the problem, other than > failure to RTFM? > > -- > My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask > what you can do for our language. > > Mark Lawrence
Holy hell, why such an aggressive tone? I understand how range(x, y) works. It's just a simple mistake that I frequently do it wrong and have to correct it after the first time I run it. It's not like I'm saying that the implementation needs to change. I'm just saying that if I want to loop from 10 to 20, my first thought is to use range(10, 20). It is slightly unintuitive. *YES*, I know it is wrong. *YES*, I understand why the correct usage would be range(10, 21) to get that list from 10 to 20. Get off your high horse. Not everybody is like you and has been using Python for 15 years and apparently never makes mistakes. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
