Well, I'm sorry for bothering his majesty with such a stupid idea. At
least one other person didn't know about it either...
On 5/28/08, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 28-May-08, at 6:23 PM, Daniel Wong wrote:
>
>> Currently, I must do the following instead:
>>
>> for n, pair in enume
I just looked through the official tutorial and Dive into Python, and
didn't find anything about it in either of those places. While this
feature is documented in the language reference, it does not seem to
be a well-known feature (another example: at least one other person
did not know about it).
Indeed. Thank you, Guido.
On 5/28/08, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apart from the missing comma after 'big' this is already supported.
>
> The time machine strikes again!
>
> --Guido
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Daniel Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Are there
I actually read a good portion of the thread that PEP 3099 refers to,
so I thought I had read up on the subject before making my suggestion.
I had also perused that PEP and didn't realize there was no way my
suggestion could be accepted.
I suppose it's too late, but I think it's too bad that a neg
This is in response to Stefan Behnel, who wrote
Tutorial section on "tuples and sequences", not quite the most hidden place in
the universe.
http://docs.python.org/tut/node7.html#SECTION00730
Stefan
I just read that section twice and no where does it mention that
Pyt
