Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-15 Thread Anand Balachandran Pillai
Good to see this. Thanks! On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you're interested, I've implemented equality for range in issue 2603. > > > -- > Cheers, > Benjamin Peterson > -- -Anand ___ Python-3000 m

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-12 Thread Benjamin Peterson
If you're interested, I've implemented equality for range in issue 2603. -- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson ___ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/o

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-09 Thread Guido van Rossum
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Still this seems like a bad thing to break backward compatibility with. That's not a very strong argument for Py3k. > Hopefully, this will be well documented at 3.0 release. Currently > that "whats new" page

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-09 Thread Anand Balachandran Pillai
I was quoting from the 3.0 a4 docs. It needs to be fixed then. Thanks --Anand On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Arnaud Delobelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 09/04/2008, Anand Balachandran Pillai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "range() now returns an iterator rather than a list... > No: ran

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-09 Thread Arnaud Delobelle
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

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-09 Thread Georg Brandl
Anand Balachandran Pillai schrieb: > Still this seems like a bad thing to break backward compatibility with. > However I cannot really provide a use-case apart from what Benjamin > has said -> Teaching. It is not a common use-case to equate ranges > in code and that is bad coding anyway. > > Hopef

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-09 Thread Nick Coghlan
Anand Balachandran Pillai wrote: > Still this seems like a bad thing to break backward compatibility with. > However I cannot really provide a use-case apart from what Benjamin > has said -> Teaching. It is not a common use-case to equate ranges > in code and that is bad coding anyway. > > Hopeful

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-08 Thread Anand Balachandran Pillai
Still this seems like a bad thing to break backward compatibility with. However I cannot really provide a use-case apart from what Benjamin has said -> Teaching. It is not a common use-case to equate ranges in code and that is bad coding anyway. Hopefully, this will be well documented at 3.0 relea

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-08 Thread Guido van Rossum
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > range is one of the first functions introduced in teaching Python. That's only because educators were raised on Pascal for loops. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-08 Thread Benjamin Peterson
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Benjamin Peterson > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Benjamin Peterson > >

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-08 Thread Brett Cannon
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Benjamin Peterson > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is there a reason this is not implemented, thoug

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-08 Thread Benjamin Peterson
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Benjamin Peterson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there a reason this is not implemented, though? It's seems to me > > they should be equivalent. > > Where's the use case? Educatio

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-08 Thread Guido van Rossum
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a reason this is not implemented, though? It's seems to me > they should be equivalent. Where's the use case? -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-08 Thread Benjamin Peterson
Is there a reason this is not implemented, though? It's seems to me they should be equivalent. [snip] -- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson ___ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: h

Re: [Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-08 Thread Steven Bethard
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Anand Balachandran Pillai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > There seems to be inconsistency in the way the new range(...) > type implements equality and inequality operators. > > In Python 2.x, range(...) of course returns lists and when you > equate lhs of

[Python-3000] Equality of range objects

2008-04-08 Thread Anand Balachandran Pillai
Hi, There seems to be inconsistency in the way the new range(...) type implements equality and inequality operators. In Python 2.x, range(...) of course returns lists and when you equate lhs of two range(...) functions over the same range, you get True, since we are comparing equal lists. P