On 6/18/05 4:45 AM -0400 Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The above recommendations should get the PEP ready for judgement day.
I thought judgement day already happened for this PEP in the "Parade of
PEPs". No?
> Also, I recommend tightening the PEP's motivation. There are only two
> advantages, encoding and readability. The former is only a minor gain
> because all it saves is a function call, an O(1) savings in an O(n)
> context. The latter is where the real benefits lay.
The readability part is really my only motivation for this. In a nutshell,
I would like a syntax that I could use with little or no explanation with
people who already understand some concepts of imperative programming but
have never seen Python before (e.g. when I use Python-like syntax for the
pseudocode in my algorithms lectures). The current for x in range(...)
syntax is not quite there.
In practice, I have been using
for x in 0, 1, 2, ... n-1:
which does not work as actual programming language syntax but seems to
communicate my point better than the available syntaxes.
I have to admit, among your proposed options
> for i between 2 < i <= 10: ...
> for i over 2 < i <= 10: ... # chained comparison style
> for i over [2:11]: ... # Slice style
> for i = 3 to 10: ... # Basic style
I don't really care for the repetition of the variable name in the first
two, the third is no more readable to me than the current range syntax, and
the last one only looks ok to me because I used to program in Pascal, long
ago.
--
David Eppstein
Computer Science Dept., Univ. of California, Irvine
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
_______________________________________________
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
