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

[Tim Peters]

[Greg Ewing]
> * Allow implicit line continuations anywhere you have what
>   is obviously a syntactically incomplete structure (e.g.
>   an expression ending with a binary operator).

[Andrew Maizels]
> I've thought about that, but I'm not sure how well this will fly with
> the average programmer.  I think Icon does this.

Yes, Icon does.  Works very well!  Especially if you leave the useless "unary
+" out of the language, so that

    i = 3
    + 2

doesn't get interpreted as two separate stmts, but as one stmt followed by a
syntax error.

Note that Python used to require explicit continuation on every continued
line.  Implicit continuation was added later (when in the midst of an
unclosed bracketing-- ({[ --structure).  That change was more popular even
than adding ">>" to "print" <wink>.

The odd thing is you can't win:  people will screw up no matter what you do
about this, until there's a smart language-aware editor.