* 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
11 matches
Mail list logo
