Thought on PEP 204 and 276

[Chris Liechti]

Steve Horne <steve at lurking.demon.co.uk> wrote in 
news:ckp4fuc4fskjcpilnn2mrt3665fqvld92g at 4ax.com:
> 
> I can't help being disappointed that PEP 204 was rejected. To me,
> 
>   for i in [0:10] :
>
> is much more intuitive than the PEP 276 version
> 
>   for i in 10 :
> 
> As for the ideas like allowing '[1, 5:10, 20]'

but all those don't make a real imprevement (some would say the would make 
the language worse). what would be more useful is the ability to write 
different open/closed itervals, such as 0<i<=7 -> range(1,8).

if shortness is your motivation, just define "r=range" or make a class with 
__getitem__ and give it a short name. i think such indeas came up when the 
discussion happened.

and in the end, >>> import this: "explicit is better than implicit"

chris

-- 
Chris <cliechti at gmx.net>