William Stein wrote: > > I personally think the idea of irange is very sensible. The srange function > I wrote isn't very good, since it is too slow (it's not in Cython, etc.). > It would be nice if irange were implemented from the start to > be highly optimized, and if there were further discussion about > it before it goes into Sage, given how many interesting opinions and > ideas people had about ranges during the recent discussion.
I'm sorry. I should have given it some more thoughts. It is perfectly
possible to express irange in terms of srange:
def irange(start, stop, step=1):
return srange(start, stop, step, include_endpoint=True)
As simple as that. So optimizing srange is all that is needed.
Jaap
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
irange_improved.hg
Description: Binary data
