On Aug 16, 3:35 pm, sturlamolden <sturlamol...@yahoo.no> wrote: > On 16 Aug, 14:57, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > Well, the alternative would be to have two keywords for looping: one > > for your "simple" incrementing integer loop, and another for a loop that > > operates over the elements of some collection type. > > A compiler could easily recognise a statement like > > for i in range(n): > > as a simple integer loop.
It would be a simple to do if you were writing it for a different langauge was a lot less dynamic than Python is. It'd be quite a complex hack to add it to CPython's compiler while maintaing the current highly dynamic runtime semantics and backwards compatibility, which is a design constraint of Python whether you like it or not. And all this complaining about an issue that can be worked around by xrange instead of range. Sheesh. > In fact, Cython is able to do this. Cython can do this easily because it is a different language that is a lot less dynamic than Python. If you don't care about the dynamic stuff why don't you just use Cython? Or quit complaining and just use xrange. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
