On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:50 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>>> I wonder if there would be some consistent way to make 1..4 stand >>> for >>> an iterator, and [1..4] a list. Hmm: then since we'd want >>> [2,3,5..9] >>> to be a list, we'd want 2,3,5..9 to be an iterator, whereas >>> (2,3,5..9) >>> would presumably be a tuple, which seems problematic. Is there a >>> clean way to handle this? Regarding this, it would be more like list comprehension. [blah for x in A] is a list. (blah for x in A) is an iterator. 1..4 would be more ambigious to pre-parse. However, if we go with the current tally it looks like it's going to be shot down anyway... > > I vote against it! > > (a) because I usually vote against preparser changes :-) > (b) it means SAGE is slowly getting its own language and > (c) it breaks conventions, i.e. it adds confusion IMHO. > (d) It might be because I used to be CS major but I think it is > okay just > educate users about the -- wildly used -- Python (and C and Java) > convention. > (e) It is not a math paper you are writing in SAGE but they are > writing code > in a programming language and you are using a library with a lot of > math > capabilities. > > Martin > > -- > name: Martin Albrecht > _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 > _www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb > _jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
