On Feb 3, 11:20 am, Paul McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[... some code... some words ... more code, etc. ...]
> But this still seems like a lot of work to avoid "for x in range(n):".
I agree. The point of me using "for _ in xrange (n)" isn't to avoid
the for loop at all. What I wanted was a pythonic way to express only
the necessary components of the loop, like the Ruby version "n.times
do { stuff }" does. There's no explicit index in the Ruby code,
because you don't care about it.
Now, if you could monkeypatch built-ins, I'd *almost* consider adding
a .times method to integers. But, of course, monkeypatching is evil. :-
>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
