iters on ints? (reducing the need for range/xrange)

[Steven D. Majewski]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 James_Althoff at i2.com wrote:

> On the other hand, 2.2 takes us away from the concept of "suggesting a
> sequence" in the context of for-loops.  Instead, the new for-loops are
> *iterator*-protocol based (not *sequence*-protocol based).  They iterate
> over something that *is* or *can return* an iterator object.
> 
> So under the proposed scenario, if one looks at 10 and asks "if 10 were to
> return an iterator, what would that iterator iterate over?", then it seems
> that range(10) would be a more *useful* answer than a sequence of one
> element 10.
> 

I wouldn't be against 'iter(10)' returning an iterator but having 10 BE
an iterator is too much of a surprise. 

Besides:

	for i in 10: 

is just too close to:

	for i in 10,: 

What would a newbie guess:

	for i in 1,10: 

means? 

( I like 'for i in 1..10:' better. ) 

-- Steve