This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author terry.reedy
Recipients AlokSinghal, loewis, rhettinger, terry.reedy, thomasguest
Date 2014-06-22.18:04:06
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1403460246.48.0.310124305282.issue6305@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
All contributions are subject to final commit review. I looked at the patch and it is a *lot* of code for little benefit. I think the better solution would be an informative error message: "Currently, islice arguments must be less than {} on {}-bit systems".format(n, k).

Since I posted nearly 4 years ago, I have become more aware of the important differences between 3.x range as a sequence class whose instances are non-iterator *(re)iterables* and count as an iterator class whose instances are one-time *iterators*. To me, arbitrarily large indices now seem more appropriate for virtual sequences that can do O[1] indexing rather than iterators where indexing is O[n].

A recent proposal on python-ideas, which as I remember amounted to enhancing count to be more like range, tripped over this difference. I suggested that a new infinite sequence class Count (like range but without necessarily having a stop value) was a more sensible idea for what the OP wanted to do.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-06-22 18:04:06terry.reedysetrecipients: + terry.reedy, loewis, rhettinger, thomasguest, AlokSinghal
2014-06-22 18:04:06terry.reedysetmessageid: <1403460246.48.0.310124305282.issue6305@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-06-22 18:04:06terry.reedylinkissue6305 messages
2014-06-22 18:04:06terry.reedycreate