Introduction

    This PEP describes the `range literal' proposal for Python 2.0.
    This PEP tracks the status and ownership of this feature, slated
    for introduction in Python 2.0.  It contains a description of the
    feature and outlines changes necessary to support the feature.
    This PEP summarizes discussions held in mailing list forums, and
    provides URLs for further information, where appropriate.  The CVS
    revision history of this file contains the definitive historical
    record.

List ranges

    Ranges are sequences of numbers of a fixed stepping, often used in
    for-loops.  The Python for-loop is designed to iterate over a
    sequence directly:
    
        >>> l = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd']
        >>> for item in l:
        ...     print item
        a
        b
        c
        d
    
    However, this solution is not always prudent.  Firstly, problems
    arise when altering the sequence in the body of the for-loop,
    resulting in the for-loop skipping items.  Secondly, it is not
    possible to iterate over, say, every second element of the
    sequence.  And thirdly, it is sometimes necessary to process an
    element based on its index, which is not readily available in the
    above construct.
    
    For these instances, and others where a range of numbers is
    desired, Python provides the `range' builtin function, which
    creates a list of numbers.  The `range' function takes three
    arguments, `start', `end' and `step'.  `start' and `step' are
    optional, and default to 0 and 1, respectively.
    
    The `range' function creates a list of numbers, starting at
    `start', with a step of `step', up to, but not including `end', so
    that `range(10)' produces a list that has exactly 10 items, the
    numbers 0 through 9.
    
    Using the `range' function, the above example would look like
    this:
    
        >>> for i in range(len(l)):
        ...     print l[i]
        a
        b
        c
        d
    
    Or, to start at the second element of `l' and processing only
    every second element from then on:
    
        >>> for i in range(1, len(l), 2):
        ...     print l[i]
        b
        d
    
    There are several disadvantages with this approach:
    
    - Clarity of purpose: Adding another function call, possibly with
      extra arithmetic to determine the desired length and step of the
      list, does not improve readability of the code.  Also, it is
      possible to `shadow' the builtin `range' function by supplying a
      local or global variable with the same name, effectively
      replacing it.  This may or may not be a desired effect.
      
    - Efficiency: because the `range' function can be overridden, the
      Python compiler cannot make assumptions about the for-loop, and
      has to maintain a separate loop counter.
      
    - Consistency: There already is a syntax that is used to denote
      ranges, as shown below.  This syntax uses the exact same
      arguments, though all optional, in the exact same way.  It seems
      logical to extend this syntax to ranges, to form `range
      literals'.

Slice Indices

    In Python, a sequence can be indexed in one of two ways:
    retrieving a single item, or retrieving a range of items. 
    Retrieving a range of items results in a new object of the same
    type as the original sequence, containing zero or more items from
    the original sequence.  This is done using a `range notation':
    
        >>> l[2:4]
        ['c', 'd']
    
    This range notation consists of zero, one or two indices separated
    by a colon.  The first index is the `start' index, the second the
    `end'.  When either is left out, they default to respectively the
    start and the end of the sequence.
    
    There is also an extended range notation, which incorporates
    `step' as well.  Though this notation is not currently supported
    by most builtin types, if it were, it would work as follows:
    
        >>> l[1:4:2]
        ['b', 'd']

    The third `argument' to the slice syntax is exactly the same as
    the `step' argument to range().  The underlying mechanisms of the
    standard, and these extended slices, are sufficiently different
    and inconsistent that many classes and extensions outside of
    mathematical packages do not implement support for the extended
    variant.  While this should be resolved, it is beyond the scope of
    this PEP.
    
    Extended slices do show, however, that there is already a
    perfectly valid and applicable syntax to denote ranges in a way
    that solve all of the earlier stated disadvantages of the use of
    the range() function:
    
    - It is clearer, more concise syntax, which has already proven to
      be both intuitive and easy to learn.
      
    - It is consistent with the other use of ranges in Python
      (e.g. slices).
      
    - Because it is built-in syntax, instead of a builtin function, it
      cannot be overridden.  This means both that a viewer can be
      certain about what the code does, and that an optimizer will not
      have to worry about range() being `shadowed'.

The Proposed Solution

    The proposed implementation of range-literals combines the syntax
    for list literals with the syntax for (extended) slices, to form
    range literals:
    
        >>> [1:10]
        [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
        >>> [:5]
        [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
        >>> [5:1:-1]
        [5, 4, 3, 2]
    
    There is one minor difference between range literals and the slice
    syntax: though it is possible to omit all of `start', `end' and
    `step' in slices, it does not make sense to omit `end' in range
    literals.  In slices, `end' would default to the end of the list,
    but this has no meaning in range literals.

Reference Implementation

    The proposed implementation can be found on SourceForge[1].  It
    adds a new bytecode, BUILD_RANGE, that takes three arguments from
    the stack and builds a list on the bases of those.  The list is
    pushed back on the stack.
    
    The use of a new bytecode is necessary to be able to build ranges
    based on other calculations, whose outcome is not known at compile
    time.
    
    The code introduces two new functions to listobject.c, which are
    currently hovering between private functions and full-fledged API
    calls.

    PyList_FromRange() builds a list from start, end and step,
    returning NULL if an error occurs.  Its prototype is:

        PyObject * PyList_FromRange(long start, long end, long step)
    
    PyList_GetLenOfRange() is a helper function used to determine the
    length of a range.  Previously, it was a static function in
    bltinmodule.c, but is now necessary in both listobject.c and
    bltinmodule.c (for xrange).  It is made non-static solely to avoid
    code duplication.  Its prototype is:

        long PyList_GetLenOfRange(long start, long end, long step) 

Open issues

    - One possible solution to the discrepancy of requiring the `end'
      argument in range literals is to allow the range syntax to
      create a `generator', rather than a list, such as the `xrange'
      builtin function does.  However, a generator would not be a
      list, and it would be impossible, for instance, to assign to
      items in the generator, or append to it.

      The range syntax could conceivably be extended to include tuples
      (i.e. immutable lists), which could then be safely implemented
      as generators.  This may be a desirable solution, especially for
      large number arrays: generators require very little in the way
      of storage and initialization, and there is only a small
      performance impact in calculating and creating the appropriate
      number on request.  (TBD: is there any at all? Cursory testing
      suggests equal performance even in the case of ranges of length
      1)

      However, even if idea was adopted, would it be wise to `special
      case' the second argument, making it optional in one instance of
      the syntax, and non-optional in other cases ?

    - Should it be possible to mix range syntax with normal list
      literals, creating a single list?  E.g.:

          >>> [5, 6, 1:6, 7, 9]

    to create

          [5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9]

    - How should range literals interact with another proposed new
      feature, `list comprehensions'[2]?  Specifically, should it be
      possible to create lists in list comprehensions?  E.g.:
    
          >>> [x:y for x in (1, 2) y in (3, 4)]

      Should this example return a single list with multiple ranges:

          [1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3]

      Or a list of lists, like so:

          [[1, 2], [1, 2, 3], [2], [2, 3]]

      However, as the syntax and semantics of list comprehensions are
      still subject of hot debate, these issues are probably best
      addressed by the `list comprehensions' PEP.

    - Range literals accept objects other than integers: it performs
      PyInt_AsLong() on the objects passed in, so as long as the
      objects can be coerced into integers, they will be accepted.
      The resulting list, however, is always composed of standard
      integers.

      Should range literals create a list of the passed-in type?  It
      might be desirable in the cases of other builtin types, such as
      longs and strings:

          >>> [ 1L : 2L<<64 : 2<<32L ]    
          >>> ["a":"z":"b"]
          >>> ["a":"z":2]

      However, this might be too much `magic' to be obvious.  It might
      also present problems with user-defined classes: even if the
      base class can be found and a new instance created, the instance
      may require additional arguments to __init__, causing the
      creation to fail.
    
    - The PyList_FromRange() and PyList_GetLenOfRange() functions need
      to be classified: are they part of the API, or should they be
      made private functions?

Rejection

    After careful consideration, and a period of meditation, this
    proposal has been rejected. The open issues, as well as some
    confusion between ranges and slice syntax, raised enough questions
    for Guido not to accept it for Python 2.0, and later to reject the
    proposal altogether. The new syntax and its intentions were deemed
    not obvious enough.

    [ TBD: Guido, ammend/confirm this, please. Preferably both; this
      is a PEP, it should contain *all* the reasons for rejection
      and/or reconsideration, for future reference. ]

Copyright

    This document has been placed in the Public Domain.

References:

    [1] http://sourceforge.net/patch/?func=detailpatch&patch_id=100902&group_id=5470
    [2] PEP 202, List Comprehensions