On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Alex Martelli wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:51:58 +0100, Xavier Morel wrote: >> >>> For those who'd need the (0..n-1) behavior, Ruby features something >>> that I find quite elegant (if not perfectly obvious at first), >>> (first..last) provides a range from first to last with both boundaries >>> included, but (first...last) (notice the 3 periods) >> >> No, no I didn't. >> >> Sheesh, that just *screams* "Off By One Errors!!!". Python deliberately >> uses a simple, consistent system of indexing from the start to one past >> the end specifically to help prevent signpost errors, and now some >> folks want to undermine that. >> >> *shakes head in amazement* > > Agreed. *IF* we truly needed an occasional "up to X *INCLUDED*" > sequence, it should be in a syntax that can't FAIL to be noticed, such > as range(X, endincluded=True).
How about first,,last? Harder to do by mistake, but pretty horrible in its own way. tom -- Socialism - straight in the mainline! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
