Amaury - I think it's generally cleaner code to write
for myObject in someList:
if myObject.fits():
process(myObject)
break
than
for myObject in someList:
if myObject.fits():
break
process(myObject)
I see from csv.py how it could simplify things (e.g. if the else case was
less trivial); however, for csv.py specifically, lines 372 to 392 could
prob. be rewritten as
# default to length of string
thisType = len(row[col])
for typeFunc in [int, float, complex]:
try:
typeFunc(row[col])
thisType = typeFunc
break
except (ValueError, OverflowError):
pass
if columnTypes[col] is None:
# add new column type
columnTypes[col] = thisType
elif thisType != columnTypes[col]:
# type is inconsistent, remove column from consideration
del columnTypes[col]
I'd be interested in seeing how often it is actually used.
I suppose carrying loop variable after the loop makes some sense in the
context of having only local and global scopes: clearly one wouldn't want to
make code inside the loop use "global" to access variables outside of the
loop. Creating a special scope for loop iteration variables would probably
also be a bad thing, though py3k currently prints a warning about concurrent
modification; perhaps this is not so different.
Guido - sorry I didn't know. Given how scopes work in python, I don't think
this is going to go anywhere, so at the moment I'm not going to repost /
revive arguments.
Thanks,
Nicholas
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
