[Python-ideas] Way to repeat other than "for _ in range(x)"

[Brice PARENT]

>
> > `for _ in range(x, y, z)`
>
> Makes little sense, since there's still a fixed amount of steps and 
> normal range(x) could just be used instead. As a matter of fact, it 
> can be replaced with either of these, arguably `repeat_for` version 
> being cleaner:
>
>   for _ in range((y-x+1)//z)
>   repeat_for (y - x + 1) // z
>
> And in that one *extremely* unlikely and rare scenario where someone 
> really does need range() with variable start, stop, and step, and 
> doesn't need the returned variable, he can freely still use `for _ in 
> range`. This won't remove it.
>
> Your other two examples:
>
> > `for _ in one_list`
> > `for _ in any_other_kind_of_iterable`
>
> Aren't related to the syntax I'm proposing, you even quoted this part 
> yourself:
>
> > there's never a reason to use `for _ in range` anymore.
>
> But your examples don't use range() to begin with.
That's exactly my point ! What you propose is exaggeratedly specific. It 
will only work to replace exactly `for _ in range(x)`, nothing more. 
Every Python developer needs to know about `for i in range(x)`, as it is 
a really common pattern. It feels really strange to switch to a 
completely different syntax just for the case we don't care about `i`, a 
syntax that'll never be used for anything else. And to lose its 
readability if your `range` requires more that one argument.

The Zen of Python tells that way better than I do;
- There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. 
-> As we won't forbid the syntax with range, why add a second obvious 
way to do it?
- Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules. -> The new 
syntax aims at a very specific special case, don't break the rules for it.

-Brice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20170330/0271045d/attachment.html>