* James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-08 11:18:44]:
> On May 8, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Armin Rigo wrote:
> > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:14:02AM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> >> I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
> >> xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that m
""Martin v. Löwis"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> Just curious why 2to3 would not replace range() with list(range())?
|
| In most usages of range(), using the 3.0 range() will work just as
| well, and be more efficient.
If so, which it would seem from range2x fun
> Just curious why 2to3 would not replace range() with list(range())?
In most usages of range(), using the 3.0 range() will work just as
well, and be more efficient.
If I wanted to write code that works in both versions (which I
understand is not the 2to3 objective), then I would use range().
If
On May 8, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Armin Rigo wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:14:02AM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
>> I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
>> xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage
>> of it is unnecessary. With it going away in 3.0,
On 5/8/07, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:14:02AM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> > I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
> > xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage
> > of it is unnecessary. With it going away in
Hi Anthony,
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:14:02AM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
> xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage
> of it is unnecessary. With it going away in 3.0, and it being
> informally deprecate
On 5/7/07, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | But why bother? The 2to3 converter can do this for you.
> |
> | In a sense using range() is more likely to produce broken results in
> | 3.0: if your code depen
> I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
> xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage
> of it is unnecessary. With it going away in 3.0, and it being
> informally deprecated anyway, it seems like a good thing to go away
> where possible.
>
>Any obj
"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| But why bother? The 2to3 converter can do this for you.
|
| In a sense using range() is more likely to produce broken results in
| 3.0: if your code depends on the fact that range() returns a list, it
| is broken in
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:14:02AM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
> xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage
> of it is unnecessary. With it going away in 3.0, and it being
> informally deprecated anyway, it
But why bother? The 2to3 converter can do this for you.
In a sense using range() is more likely to produce broken results in
3.0: if your code depends on the fact that range() returns a list, it
is broken in 3.0, and 2to3 cannot help you here. But if you use
list(xrange()) today, the converter wil
I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage
of it is unnecessary. With it going away in 3.0, and it being
informally deprecated anyway, it seems like a good thing to go away
where possible.
Any objections?
Ant
12 matches
Mail list logo
