On 9/22/07, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree. And I think 0 should be illegal for a step size (but negative is
> ok).
I also agree that [1..10] is good, and [1..10, step=3] is good, but that
automagic stuff like [1,3,..,10] is going too far. Remember the Zen of Python:
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit. <------*****
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
....
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/
>
> John
>
> On 9/22/07, Soroosh Yazdani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 05:20:39PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> > > >> Also, [10..1] now returns [10], it should probably return the empty
> > > >> list. What about [10,11,.,0]? Also the empty list? I think so.
> > > >> Thoughts?
> >
> > I just want to say that despite the fact that I think [1..10] notation
> > is great, I don't like the idea of [1,3,..,10]. This notation, I think, can
> > be confusing in the long run. Along the same lines, I think [1..10, step=2]
> > is a great notation.
> > If the user wants a list that is more complicated, then they can try
> > building
> > it from other constructs.
> >
> > Soroosh
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> John Cremona
>
> >
>
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
