Status of PEP's?

[Gonçalo Rodrigues]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:46:57 -0800, David Eppstein
<eppstein at ics.uci.edu> wrote:

>In article <inaq7u8ca9rpgb21s5tgg3dgnqjerv7a0p at 4ax.com>,
> Gonçalo Rodrigues <op73418 at mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>
>> Anyone knows how is the "acceptance status" of the following PEP's, that
>> is, is there any idea if they will be accepted for the next Python
>> realease:
>> 
>> PEP 276: Iterator for ints.
>> (I really love this one - as simple and "obvious" as it gets)
>
>I don't know an answer to your question, but in contrast to your opinion, 
>I really dislike this one.  It gives a very nonintuitive meaning for
>"x in y" when both are integers (equivalent to "x <= 0 < y"), and that 

Now you have me lost. As far as I understand the PEP only talks about
providing an iterator for integers. It does not talk about supporting
the in method for integers, which, as you state, would make up for a
confusing syntax.

>meaning would hold in all contexts, not just for-loops -- I would much 
>prefer that such expressions get flagged as likely coding error and that 
>more explicit syntax be required to create integer ranges.  I think there 
>should be a better syntax for for-loops over integers, but this isn't it.
>
>(See earlier discussion of PEP276 in this group for proposed alternatives, 
>I don't want to repeat the whole same discussion again here.)

I will do just that.

Thanx,
Gonçalo Rodrigues