PEP 276 Simple Iterator for ints (fwd)

[Greg Ewing]

Jeff Shannon wrote:
> 
> David Eppstein wrote:
> 
> > I don't care for it -- is it really natural and intuitive
> > that "x in y" should be equivalent to "0 <= x < y" when x and y are both
> > ints?
> 
> PEP 276 does not make an integer equivalent to the
> list of natural numbers ending below it;

I think the point Mr. Eppstein was making is that
"for i in seq" can be read as "for all values of i
such that i in seq is true". PEP 276 would break
that, because "for i in 5" couldn't sensibly be
read as "for all values of i such that i in 5
is true", unless "i in 5" on its own were valid and
had a rather unintuitive meaning.

-- 
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, University of Canterbury,	  
Christchurch, New Zealand
To get my email address, please visit my web page:	  
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg