On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Benjamin Peterson
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Is there a reason this is not implemented, though? It's seems to me
> > > > they should be equivalent.
> > >
> > > Where's the use case?
> > Education. the range object describes a set of integers from one point
> > to another, so to a new Python student having them not equivalent
> > can't be helpful.
>
> That's not good enough. You could say that for almost anything. Plus
> it just becomes that much more code and feature-set to maintain.
range is one of the first functions introduced in teaching Python.
How about this similar implemented behavior:
>>> {"1":2}.keys() == {"1":2}.keys()
True
>
> -Brett
>
--
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
