Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Facundo Batista
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Which should the range() definition be, in your words?
In terms of ABCs, range(..) is a Sized Iterable in the current
implementation. It is not a Sequence because it is not a Container
and does not support slicing. The idea to support x in range(..) was
discussed last year [1] and appears to have been accepted but not
implemented. I understand that slicing support is in the works. [2]
I believe it would make sense to turn range(..) into a Sequence. Here
are my reasons:
1. It will be easy to explain what range(..) is: "a sequence of
integers from start to stop, excluding stop, skipping step".
2. There will be fewer 2 to 3 incompatibilities.
[1] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-July/009028.html
[2] http://bugs.python.org/msg65807
I like this as a goal - I'll make sure to find the time to help review
any patches aimed at achieving it (starting with the one to cache the
length of the range during object creation).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
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
