Op 2006-02-20, Steven D'Aprano schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> John Zenger wrote:
>
>> I strongly agree that Python should promote range or xrange to syntax. I
>> favor [0..10] rather than [0:10] because 0..10 is inherently easier to
>> understand.
>
> "Inherently"?
>
> You mean people are born wi
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> John Zenger wrote:
>
>> I strongly agree that Python should promote range or xrange to syntax.
>> I favor [0..10] rather than [0:10] because 0..10 is inherently easier
>> to understand.
>
>
> "Inherently"?
>
> You mean people are born with an instinctive, unlearnt und
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tim Hochberg wrote:
>
>>Colin J. Williams wrote:
>>
>>
It would be good if the range and slice could be merged in some way,
although the extended slice is rather complicated - I don't understand it.
The semantics for an extended slicing are as follows.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> John Zenger wrote:
>
>> I strongly agree that Python should promote range or xrange to syntax.
>> I favor [0..10] rather than [0:10] because 0..10 is inherently easier
>> to understand.
>
> "Inherently"?
>
> You mean people are born with an instinctive, unlearnt unders
John Zenger wrote:
> I strongly agree that Python should promote range or xrange to syntax. I
> favor [0..10] rather than [0:10] because 0..10 is inherently easier to
> understand.
"Inherently"?
You mean people are born with an instinctive, unlearnt
understanding of ..? Or that our brains are
Tim Hochberg wrote:
> Colin J. Williams wrote:
>
> >>
> >>It would be good if the range and slice could be merged in some way,
> >>although the extended slice is rather complicated - I don't understand it.
> >>
> >> The semantics for an extended slicing are as follows. The primary
> >> must ev
John Zenger wrote:
> I strongly agree that Python should promote range or xrange to syntax.
> I favor [0..10] rather than [0:10] because 0..10 is inherently easier to
> understand. Every maths text I have read uses the ".." notation to show
> ranges;
Math texts typically use a normal ellipsi
Colin J. Williams wrote:
> Bryan Cole wrote:
>
>>>
>>> First, I think the range() function in python is ugly to begin with.
>>> Why can't python just support range notation directly like 'for a in
>>> 0:10'. Or with 0..10 or 0...10 syntax. That seems to make a lot more
>>> sense to me tha
Colin J. Williams wrote:
>>
>>It would be good if the range and slice could be merged in some way,
>>although the extended slice is rather complicated - I don't understand it.
>>
>> The semantics for an extended slicing are as follows. The primary
>> must evaluate to a mapping object, and it i
Colin J. Williams wrote:
> Bryan Cole wrote:
>
>>>
>>> First, I think the range() function in python is ugly to begin with.
>>> Why can't python just support range notation directly like 'for a in
>>> 0:10'. Or with 0..10 or 0...10 syntax. That seems to make a lot more
>>> sense to me tha
Bryan Cole wrote:
>>
>>
>>First, I think the range() function in python is ugly to begin with.
>>Why can't python just support range notation directly like 'for a in
>>0:10'. Or with 0..10 or 0...10 syntax. That seems to make a lot more
>>sense to me than having to call a named function.
11 matches
Mail list logo
