[Raymond Hettinger] > > > I recommend that the proposed syntax be altered to be more parallel > > > with the existing for-loop syntax to make it more parsable for both > > > humans and for the compiler.
[Michael Hudson] > > Although all your suggestions are improvments, I'm still -1 on the PEP. [Guido] > Same here. The whole point (15 years ago) of range() was to *avoid* > needing syntax to specify a loop over numbers. I think it's worked out > well and there's nothing that needs to be fixed (except range() needs > to become an interator, which it will in Python 3.0). I concur. Saying that no form of the idea is viable will save the PEP authors from another round or two of improvements. Marking as rejected and noting why. Raymond _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
