On 6/18/05, Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I recommend that the proposed syntax be altered to be more parallel > > with the existing for-loop syntax to make it more parsable for both > > humans and for the compiler. > > Although all your suggestions are improvments, I'm still -1 on the PEP.
Same here. The whole point (15 years ago) of range() was to *avoid* needing syntax to specify a loop over numbers. I think it's worked out well and there's nothing that needs to be fixed (except range() needs to become an interator, which it will in Python 3.0). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
