4 ms·
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E...
by Pelic4n 6y ago
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E...
- ufo 6y agoThis always seems to pop up in these discussions but I don't think I am terribly convinced by his argument. For example, he doesn't mention that option (c) is better than option (a) if you need to iterate backwards. In that case option (a) becomes option (b), which everyone can agree objectively sucks :)
- pansa2 6y agoYes! Reverse ranges in Python are awkward for this reason. The reverse of `range(0, 5)` (i.e. [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]) isn’t `range(5, 0, -1)`, it’s `range(4, -1, -1)`. I think it would be better if the end-points were “low” and “high” rather than “start” and “stop”, so the reverse of `range(0, 5)` would simply be `range(0, 5, -1)`.
- bad-apple 6y agoI think Rust has another good alternative to this, although it might be cheating a little: you can just write (lo..hi).rev(). That way, the common case of going forwards is nice, and the case of going backward isn't much worse.