indexing, indices(), irange(), list.items() (was RE: [Python-Dev] Lockstep iteration (original) (raw)

Tim Peters tim_one@email.msn.com
Fri, 18 Aug 2000 04:02:40 -0400

I'm stifling it, but, FWIW, I've been trying to sell "indexing" for most of my adult life <wink -- but yes, in my experience too range(len(seq)) is extraordinarly hard to get across to newbies at first; and I *expect* [:len(seq)] to be at least as hard>.

-----Original Message----- From: nowonder@stud.ntnu.no [mailto:nowonder@stud.ntnu.no]On Behalf Of Peter Schneider-Kamp Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 4:06 AM To: Tim Peters Cc: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: indexing, indices(), irange(), list.items() (was RE: [Python-Dev] Lockstep iteration - eureka!)

Tim Peters wrote: > > Note that Guido rejected all the loop-gimmick proposals ("indexing", > indices(), irange(), and list.items()) on Thursday, so let's stifle this > debate until after 2.0 (or, even better, until after I'm dead ). That's sad. :-/ One of the reasons I implemented .items() is that I wanted to increase the probability that at least something is available instead of: for i in range(len(list): e = list[i] ... or for i, e in zip(range(len(list)), list): ... I'm going to teach Python to a lot of newbies (ca. 30) in October. From my experience (I already tried my luck on two individuals from that group) 'range(len(list))' is one of the harder concepts to get across. Even indices(list) would help here. Peter -- Peter Schneider-Kamp ++47-7388-7331 Herman Krags veg 51-11 mailto:peter@schneider-kamp.de N-7050 Trondheim http://schneider-kamp.de