"Gregory Petrosyan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As you can see, PEP 204 was rejected, mostly because of not-so-obvious > syntax. But IMO the idea behind this pep is very nice. So, maybe > there's a reason to adopt slightly modified Haskell's syntax?
I like this with some issues: Python loops tend to be 0-based, so while it's convenient to express the sequence [1..n], what you usually want is [0..(n-1)] which is uglier. If you want to count down from f(n) to zero, in Haskell you might say [b, b-1 .. 0] where b=f(n) There's no "where" in Python, so what do you do? [f(n)-1, f(n)-2 .. 0] evaluates f twice (and might not even get the same result both times), while the traditional xrange(f(n)-1, -1, -1) only evaluates it once but is IMO repulsive. Anyway I've never liked having to use range or xrange to control Python loops. It's just kludgy and confusing. So I think your idea has potential but there's issues that have to be worked out. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
