Tom Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The natural way to implement this would be to make .. a normal > operator, rather than magic, and add a __range__ special method to > handle it. "a .. b" would translate to "a.__range__(b)". I note that > Roman Suzi proposed this back in 2001, after PEP 204 was > rejected. It's a pretty obvious implementation, after all.
Interesting, but what do you do about the "unary postfix" (1 ..) infinite generator? > > (-3,-5 ..) --> 'infinite' generator that yield -3,-5,-7 and so on > > -1. Personally, i find the approach of specifying the first two > elements *absolutely* *revolting*, and it would consistently be more > awkward to use than a start/step/stop style syntax. Come on, when do > you know the first two terms but not the step size? Usually you know both, but showing the first two elements makes sequence more visible. I certainly like (1,3..9) better than (1,9;2) or whatever. > > 1) "[]" means list, "()" means generator > Yuck. Yes, i know it's consistent with list comps and genexps, but > yuck to those too! I'd be ok with getting rid of [] and just having generators or xrange-like class instances. If you want to coerce one of those to a list, you'd say list((1..5)) instead of [1..5]. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
