Steven D'Aprano <[email protected]> added the comment:
With the proposed design, any two empty range objects have the same repr:
repr(range(0)) == repr(range(2, 2)) == repr(range(1, 5, -1)) etc.
Between this loss of information, and the loss of round-tripping through eval,
I'm against this proposal. But I'd perhaps be in favour of it as the __str__
rather than __repr__, so that printing a range object displays in the proposed
format.
By the way, the ``dumb_range_repr`` function in the PR could be simplified:
# untested
def dumb_range_repr(r):
if len(r) < 5:
return f"<range object {list(r)}>"
else:
return f"<range object [{r[0]}, {r[1]}, ..., {r[-2]}, {r[-1]}]>"
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue35200>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
