I haven't changed my mind. Do you really want to add atrocities such as having both .. and ... in the language where one includes the end point and the other excludes it? How would a casual user remember which is which?
--Guido On 8/8/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've seen some languages that use a double-dot (..) to mean a range of > > items. This could be syntactic sugar for range(), like so: > > > > > > for x in 1..10: > > ... > > In the pronouncement on PEP 284: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0284/ > > Guido did not buy the premise that the range() format needed fixing, > "The whole point (15 years ago) of range() was to *avoid* needing syntax > to specify a loop over numbers. I think it's worked out well and there's > nothing that needs to be fixed (except range() needs to become an > iterator, which it will in Python 3.0)." > > Unless Guido has decided that range/xrange are the wrong way to do > things, I don't think there is much discussion here. > > - Josiah > > _______________________________________________ > Python-3000 mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
