On 5/7/07, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | But why bother? The 2to3 converter can do this for you. > | > | In a sense using range() is more likely to produce broken results in > | 3.0: if your code depends on the fact that range() returns a list, it > | is broken in 3.0, and 2to3 cannot help you here. But if you use > | list(xrange()) today, the converter will turn this into list(range()) > | in 3.0 and that will continue to work correctly. > > Just curious why 2to3 would not replace range() with list(range())?
That's a good idea. But I'd like someone else to implement it... -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
