Robert Kern wrote: > I'd say bug in the .indices() method. The meaning of [4:-1:-1] is unavoidable > different than [::-1] since the index -1 points to the last element, not the > imaginary element before the first element. Unfortunately, there *is* no > concrete (start, stop, step) tuple that will emulate [::-1].
After some more experimenting, it seems that [L-1:-L-1:-1] will reverse a sequence of length L. But slice(L-1,-L-1,-1).indices(L) gives (L-1, -1,-1) which will not reverse the sequence. And range(L-1, -L-1, -1) is totally off, but range(L-1,-1,-1) is correct. Seems like a bug (or an odd feature) of extended slicing of strings and other built in sequences. GEC -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
