On May 9, 3:17 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On May 9, 10:11 am, Yves Dorfsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The only thing is, is there is another natural meaning to [a,b:c]. > > > > Counting grids on the diagonals, the rational set is well defined: > > > > 0: 0, 0 > > > 1: 1, 0 > > > 2: 0, 1 > > > 3: 2, 0 > > > 4: 1, 1 > > > 5: 0, 2 > > > 6: 3, 0 > > > 7: 2, 1 > > > ... > > > > Thencefore ( 2, 0 ) : ( 3, 0 ) is well defined. Thencefore, > > > > a,b:c,d > > > > is not; x[a,b:c,d]= x[a]+ x[b:c]+ x[d]. > > > I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you give me a simple piece of code to > > show an example ? > > > Yves.http://www.SollerS.ca-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Yves, sadly, simple piece of code is not the writer's forte. I was > merely advising against leaping in to syntax additions, changes even. > The point was, even though a,b:c,d is shown ill-defined, a,b:c may not > be.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
Now: In the case of enumerate( rationals ), list slicing can be plenty fine. Any use to the dirational enumerate? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
