On 6/18/05 4:45 AM -0400 Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The above recommendations should get the PEP ready for judgement day.
I thought judgement day already happened for this PEP in the "Parade of
PEPs". No?
> Also, I recommend tightening the PEP's motivation. There are only
[Raymond]
> > The above recommendations should get the PEP ready for judgement
day.
[David Eppstein]
> I thought judgement day already happened for this PEP in the "Parade
of
> PEPs". No?
The parade's text said the main gripe was having the index in the
middle, rather than right after the keywor
[Raymond Hettinger]
> > > 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.
[Michael Hudson]
> > Although all your suggestions are improvments, I'm still -1 on the
PEP.
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 a
"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.
Cheer
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Also, I recommend tightening the PEP's motivation. There are only two
> advantages, encoding and readability. The former is only a minor gain
> because all it saves is a function call, an O(1) savings in an O(n)
> context. The latter is where the real benefits lay.
Th
