On 8/3/07, Stargaming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:25:36 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > On 8/2/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > The patch is based on the latest trunk/ checkout, Python 2.6. I don't > >> > think this is a problem if nobody else made any effort towards making > >> > xrange more sequence-like in the Python 3000 branch. The C source > >> > might require some tab/space cleanup. > >> > >> Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened: In Py3k, the range object > >> is defined in terms PyObject*, so your patch won't apply to the 3k > >> branch. > > > > FWIW, making xrange (or range in Py3k) "more sequence-like" is exactly > > what should *not* happen. > > No, that's exactly what *should* happen for optimization reasons. > > xrange has never (neither in 2.6 nor 3.0) had an sq_contains slot. > Growing such a slot is a precondition for implementing > xrange.__contains__ as an optimized special case, and that makes it more > sequence-like on the side of the implementation. This does not mean it > becomes more like the 2.x range, which we're abandoning. > Sorry for the confusion.
OK, gotcha. I was just warning not to add silliness like slicing. -- --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
