Bengt Richter wrote:
> range(9)[4:-!0:-1] == range(5)
> >True
> Interesting, but wouldn't that last line be
> >>> range(9)[4:-!0:-1] == range(5)[::-1]
Ups. Yes of course.
> >Life can be simpler with unbound limits.
> Hm, is "!0" a di-graph symbol for infinity?
> What if we get full unicode
On 31 Aug 2005 07:13:26 -0700, "Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bengt Richter wrote:
>
>> How about interpreting seq[i] as an abbreviation of seq[i%len(seq)] ?
>> That would give a consitent interpretation of seq[-1] and no errors
>> for any value ;-)
>
>Cool, indexing becomes cyclic by
Bengt Richter wrote:
> How about interpreting seq[i] as an abbreviation of seq[i%len(seq)] ?
> That would give a consitent interpretation of seq[-1] and no errors
> for any value ;-)
Cool, indexing becomes cyclic by default ;)
But maybe it's better to define it explicitely:
seq[!i] = seq[i%
Bengt Richter wrote:
> How about interpreting seq[i] as an abbreviation of seq[i%len(seq)] ?
> That would give a consitent interpretation of seq[-1] and no errors
> for any value ;-)
Cool, indexing becomes cyclic by default ;)
But maybe it's better to define it explicitely:
seq[!i] = seq[i%
