On Aug 17, 4:40 am, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote: > On 02:12 am, pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >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. > > In your other message, you said this wasn't a legitimate CPython > complaint. Here, you say that it would be a "complex hack" to implement > this in CPython. "complex hack" has negative connotations in my mind. > This seems contradictory to me.
Well, you missed the point, chief. It's not a legitimate complaint because you can use xrange, you don't need compiler magic to recognize and optimize range. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
