On Sep 21, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Jaap Spies wrote: > William Stein wrote: >> On 9/21/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sep 21, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Jaap Spies wrote: > >>> I don't think so, especially after resolving the issues above, but >>> the two of us are probably equally bias about or own pieces of code. >>> The only other person to have spoken up is William, maybe we should >>> consider re-opening it if others speak up. >> >> I am biased against irange because there is already: >> range, xrange, srange, and xsrange, >> and the argumetn for irange is to *lesson* confusion. >> Having irange will mean also having xirange, and that's >> just too many ranges for my brain. >> > > Why not prelude on Python 3k, where xrange will disappear?
Python 3k is at least a year away, which is a lot time for SAGE. For now, we definitely need generators (for memory reasons) and lists. > The Python long will also be obsolete, making things more simple. I'm actually not overly optimistic about this--I am wondering if it will just be more hidden from the user, but we will still have to distinguish between long-ints and int-ints in all of our Cython code for many things. (Either that or ints are taking a huge performance hit.) > One example in the Tutorial will make a function like irange, > or any other better name, acceptable for users: > > sage: sum(i for i in irange(1,10)) > 55 I still think sage: sum([1..10]) 55 or sage: sum(1..10) 55 is easier to type and understand. I can just see trying to explain to half the students in a class (who got 45) "see the little 'i' in there." - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
