inclusive-lower-bound, exclusive-upper-bound (was Re: Range Operation pre-PEP)

[Andrew Maizels]

Alex Martelli wrote:

> I disagree.  Inclusive-lower-bound, exclusive-upper-bound
> is a VERY important and useful idiom, which we should
> strive to make as widespread as we possibly can: by the
> very fact of being invariably used everywhere lower and
> upper bounds are specified, it helps a LOT against
> off-by-one errors!  I first saw it explained in Koenig's
> excellent "C traps and pitfalls" book, by the way.

I can see where consistency is important, but why does Python do the
inclusive-lower-bound, exclusive-upper-bound thing?

>From my point of view, there's one correct behaviour for range(1,5), and
it's NOT [1, 2, 3, 4]!

Andrew.
-- 
There's only one game in town.
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't quit the game.          -- The four laws of thermodynamics.