![]() Having an object that represents a range of integers without an upper bound that still implements parts of the sequence protocol (unlike unt which is really just an iterator) might be useful in some situations, but I think that it should be its own class, rather than complicating range to support it. As mentioned, what about reversed(range())? Or, even more simply, how about range()? Should /every/ negative index just return float('inf')? Sure, it /could/ be changed so that floating-point (or maybe just infinite) lengths are acceptable, but considering the amount of code that assumes that len will return an integer, that seems a like a non-starter to me.Īs far as the range(), maybe that would be acceptable (though it has a similar problem in that every element in a range is supposed to be an integer), but that’s hardly the only issue. To loop through a set of code a specified number of times, we can use the range () function, The range () function returns a sequence of numbers, starting from 0 by default, and increments by 1 (by default), and ends at a specified number. ![]() ![]() we cannot use the floating-point or the non-integer number in any of its arguments. for loops repeat a block of code for all of the values in a list, array, string, or range(). My understanding is essentially that len does some sanity checks on the result of _len_. Python range() function doesnt support the float numbers. In this article, we looked at for loops in Python and the range() function. TypeError: 'float' object cannot be interpreted as an integer That would require changes to len, which currently doesn’t allow float values. However, unlike the “computed sequence that wouldn’t fit in a 64 bit address space” case, the unbounded sequence case would either slow down multiple operations with extra checks for None, or else we’d have to play constructor games to return a different object type for the special case (and such games are inevitably confusing to maintain).īy contrast, “from itertools import count” is simple to understand conceptually and straightforward to maintain. That said, there are already some range operations that throw an exception if the sequence length doesn’t fit in 64 bits, so it isn’t unthinkable to have a special case for “stop=None”. Serhiy’s comment here is the key conceptual reason unbounded ranges aren’t allowed: they’re defined as memory efficient computed sequences rather than consumable iterators, so they’re expected to have a lower and upper bound, even though those limits might be large. And you would see that range() is a very special object, different from ordinary range object in many ways. Jokes aside, you would need to define len(range()), reversed(range()), range(), range(), x in range().
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |