On 09/04/2008, Anand Balachandran Pillai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "range() now returns an iterator rather than a list...
No: range() returns an iterable.
--
Arnaud
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/l
On 15 Mar 2008, at 16:15, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Thomas Wouters suggests some new syntax:
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue2292
>
a, b, *c = range(5)
>
*a, b, c = a, b, *c
a, b, c
> ([0, 1, 2], 3, 4)
[ *a, b, c ]
> [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
L = [ a, (3, 4), {5}, {6: None}, (i for
On 2 Mar 2008, at 02:00, Alex Martelli wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> ...
>>> I also propose translations of the shorter text to important
>>> languages
>>> like French, German, Japanese, Portuguese and Spanish. I'm willing
>>> to
>>>
On 19 Feb 2008, at 10:49, Nick Coghlan wrote:
[...]
>> Such obscure features warrant an obscure yet well-named decorator,
>> not
>> an obscure syntax that's difficult to get help on.
>
> It's difficult to handle this in a decorator, as the problem that
> occurs is the underlying function repor
On 18 Feb 2008, at 19:39, Talin wrote:
> Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
>>
[...]
>> Unconvincingly yours,
>
> Well, that is certainly a logical continuation of the train of
> thought behind the 'single *' syntax.
> I'd be curious to know which parts of 31
On Feb 14, 11:13 pm, "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've been exercising the new keyword-only arguments syntax. It is
> > absolutely wonderful. I'm amazed at how many long standing problems it
>
