On 2010-10-04, at 05:04 , Eviatar Bach wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a proposal of making the range() function inclusive; that is,
> range(3) would generate 0, 1, 2, and 3, as opposed to 0, 1, and 2. Not only
> is it more intuitive, it also seems to be used often, with coders often
> writing range(0,
On 03Oct2010 20:04, Eviatar Bach wrote:
| I have a proposal of making the range() function inclusive; that is,
| range(3) would generate 0, 1, 2, and 3, as opposed to 0, 1, and 2. Not only
| is it more intuitive, it also seems to be used often, with coders often
| writing range(0, example+1) to ge
2010/10/3 Eviatar Bach :
> Hello,
>
> I have a proposal
See the python-ideas mailing list.
> of making the range() function inclusive; that is,
> range(3) would generate 0, 1, 2, and 3, as opposed to 0, 1, and 2. Not only
> is it more intuitive, it also seems to be used often, with coders often
>
Hello,
I have a proposal of making the range() function inclusive; that is,
range(3) would generate 0, 1, 2, and 3, as opposed to 0, 1, and 2. Not only
is it more intuitive, it also seems to be used often, with coders often
writing range(0, example+1) to get the intended result. It would be easy t
