Raymond Hettinger wrote:
"Jim Jewett"
It isn't really stringiness that matters, it is that you have to
terminate even though you still have an iterable container.
Well said.
Guido had at least a start in Searchable, back when ABC
were still in the sandbox:
Have to disagree here. An object cannot know in general
whether a flattener wants to split it or not. That is an application
dependent decision. A better answer is be able to tell the
flattener what should be considered atomic in a given circumstance.
Raymond
A while back (a couple of years I think), we had a discussion on
python-list about flatten in which I posted the following version of a
flatten function. It turned out to be nearly twice as fast as any other
version.
def flatten(L):
""" Flatten a list in place. """
i = 0
while i < len(L):
while type(L[i]) is list:
L[i:i+1] = L[i]
i += 1
return L
For this to work the object to be flattened needs to be both mutable and
list like. At the moment I can't think of any reason I would want to
flatten anything that was not list like.
To make it a bit more flexible it could be changed just a bit.
def flatten(L):
""" Flatten a list in place. """
objtype = type(L)
i = 0
while i < len(L):
while type(L[i]) is objtype:
L[i:i+1] = L[i]
i += 1
return L
Generally, I don't think you would want to flatten dissimilar objects.
Cheers,
Ron
_______________________________________________
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
