Soni L. schrieb am 08.08.2017 um 01:56:
> On 2017-08-07 08:35 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Hi Soni, and welcome!
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 04:30:05PM -0300, Soni L. wrote:
>>
>>> What if, (x for x in integers if 1000 <= x < 100), was syntax sugar
>>> for (x for x in range(1000, 100))?
On 7 August 2017 at 18:48, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Ruby provides this feature. A friend who is a long term user of Rails
> complained that Rails abuses this and it's a mess in practice. So I
> dislike this idea.
Right, Python's opinionated design guidance is to clearly
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 8 August 2017 at 09:06, Chris Barker wrote:
> > It would be nice to have an easier access to an "slice iterator" though
> --
> > one of these days I may write up a proposal for that.
>
> An idea
On 8 August 2017 at 09:06, Chris Barker wrote:
> It would be nice to have an easier access to an "slice iterator" though --
> one of these days I may write up a proposal for that.
An idea I've occasionally toyed with [1] is some kind of "iterview"
that wraps around an
> Soni L. writes:
> Steven d'Aprano writes:
> > range(1000, 100)
> > (x for x in range(1000, 100)) # waste of time and effort
> Actually, those have different semantics!
That's not real important. As Stefan Behnel points out, it's simple
(and efficient) to get iterator