Status of PEP's?

[Fernando Pérez]

Samuele Pedroni wrote:

> Maybe this is a useful insight:
> 
> in mathematetics it is not uncommon to
> identify the natural numbers with the set
> of their predecessors
> 
> 0 = {}
> 1 = {0} = {{}}
> 2 = {0, 1}  {{},{{}}}
> etc

Ok, I won't argue this notation exists in some areas of mathematics, but it's 
definitely _not_ a common one for the 'general public'. I've been doing 
mathematical physics work for years, so at least I have a passing familiarity 
with common notations and conventions in math.

And it's definitely not an intuitive one. It's ok to have particular 
notations which are a bit unusual when they simplify working in a  certain 
problem domain, and all fields of mathematics have them. In cases they may 
even run against established conventions and still be accepted because of 
their usefulness (think of the implied summation for repeated indices in all 
relativity calculations, and the 3/4 range implied in those for latin/greek 
indices). But that's in very specific domains, where you can define well 
under what conventions you are operating at the beginning of the book/paper, 
whatever.

Python is a general purpose language, not one to be used only by number 
theorists. Putting at a level as basic as the integers a convention which 
allows things like 'for i in 3' to be valid iteration code really sounds 
bizarre and counter intuitive to me.

But maybe it's just me.

Cheers,

f.