[:y] would just mean [0:y].
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org
>
> > This might be a silly idea but, would it be a good idea to have
> > ...[a:b:c] return a range(a, b, c)?
>
If a 'thunderscore' is acceptable:
import itertools
class _ranger:
@classmethod
def __getitem__(self, key: slice):
if isinstance(key, slice):
if key.stop is
> This might be a silly idea but, would it be a good idea to have
> ...[a:b:c] return a range(a, b, c)?
This sort of highly-subjective syntactic sugar makes me wonder whether
there would be support for a standard python preprocessor, like what was
suggested in PEP 638 [1].
[1]: https://www.pyth
16.02.22 14:44, Soni L. пише:
> This might be a silly idea but, would it be a good idea to have
> ...[a:b:c] return a range(a, b, c)?
See PEP 204.
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0204/
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To uns
On 2022-02-16 10:45, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 09:44:07AM -0300, Soni L. wrote:
> > This might be a silly idea but, would it be a good idea to have
> > ...[a:b:c] return a range(a, b, c)?
>
> Similar ideas have been suggested before:
>
> https://mail.python.org/archives/li
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 09:44:07AM -0300, Soni L. wrote:
> This might be a silly idea but, would it be a good idea to have
> ...[a:b:c] return a range(a, b, c)?
Similar ideas have been suggested before:
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/thread/W44PPBJJXETTBQHWCMJB3DRCD
