Also in Python you can use:
for x in range (1,j+1):
to loop j times. Although it does read as though it is looping j+1 times
to those not familiar.
One more comment I wanted to make about end blocks, is that a
respectable editor will add them for you, together with the indentation
of the next line. EditPlus 2 did it best in my experience although I
think I just haven't seen a well configured alternative. I very rarely
forget the block closer but I do sometimes forget the colon.
Regarding the logical inconsistency of my argument, well I am saying
that I would prefer my redundancy at the end of the loop rather than the
beginning. To say that the status quo is better is to say that you
prefer your redundancy at the beginning. Fair enough, I'm happy to
respect your opinion there. I still struggle to see why it should be
mandatory though? For those who prefer to have the block closing
delimiters this way, is the need for a keyword (could be a command line
option) really the objection?
I'll have a detailed look at your colon link a bit later.
On 10/01/17 09:26, Chris Barker wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Simon Lovell <simon58...@bigpond.com
<mailto:simon58...@bigpond.com>> wrote:
Re: Counters starting at zero vs one, Fortran has a neat solution
to this for arrays if not strings - allow the programmer to select
the starting index.
I liked that back in the day, but I think it's really better if it's
always the same.
and see my other note for why the zero-based and open ended slicing is
fabulous -- indexing really needs to match slicing.
ONe more:
since you mentioned Fortran -- it's a common use-case for an array to
model some sort of regular spaced grid, so:
x = start_x + i*delta_x
really easy and logical math for figuring out where you are on a grid
(and the reverse calculation) -- this is a pain with 1-based indexing....
(of course, C does this for pointer math for the same reason...)
When I've programmed for loops in C, sometimes you want zero based
and sometimes one based, while most times you don't really care.
To make it readable I would wherever possible write either:
for (i=0;i<j;i++)
for (i=1;i<=j;i++) // In both cases always executing j times
in pyton, you never right that code anyway. most of the time, it's
for item in sequence:
no indexes at all.
or:
for i in range(N):
...
indexes, but you dont care
or
for i, item in enumerate(seq):
...
or for item1, item2 in zip(sequence):
...
i.e you almost never care what the starting index is!
-CHB
Rgds
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org <mailto:Python-ideas@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas>
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
<http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/>
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
chris.bar...@noaa.gov <mailto:chris.bar...@noaa.gov>
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
