> On Apr 1, 2016, at 6:57 PM, Mark Lawrence via Python-list > <python-list@python.org> wrote: > >> On 01/04/2016 23:44, sohcahto...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:10:51 PM UTC-7, Michael Okuntsov wrote: >>> Nevermind. for j in range(1,8) should be for j in range(8). >> >> I can't tell you how many times I've gotten bit in the ass with that >> off-by-one mistake whenever I use a range that doesn't start at zero. >> >> I know that if I want to loop 10 times and I either want to start at zero or >> just don't care about the actual number, I use `for i in range(10)`. But if >> I want to loop from 10 to 20, my first instinct is to write `for i in >> range(10, 20)`, and then I'm left figuring out why my loop isn't executing >> the last step. > > "First instinct"? "I expected"? The Python docs might not be perfect, but > they were certainly adequate enough to get me going 15 years ago, and since > then they've improved. So where is the problem, other than failure to RTFM? > I've always found it vaguely amusing that the server(s) for just about all the technical info at MIT reside behind http://rtfm.mit.edu
Bill > -- > My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask > what you can do for our language. > > Mark Lawrence > > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
