On Fri, 01 May 2009 15:03:30 -0700, Aaron Brady wrote: > On May 1, 4:30 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- > cybersource.com.au> wrote: >> On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:30:19 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> > I have never written anything so unbelievable in my life. And I hope >> > I never will. >> >> I didn't say you did. If anyone thought I was quoting Lawrence's code, >> I'd be surprised. It was not my intention to put words into your mouth. >> >> But seeing as you have replied, perhaps you could tell us something. >> Given so much you despise using non-bools in truth contexts, how would >> you re-write my example to avoid "a or b or c"? >> >> for x in a or b or c: >> do_something_with(x)
[...] > I don't think it would be very common to write Steven's construction for > arbitrary values of 'a', 'b', and 'c'. I don't care about "arbitrary values" for a, b and c. I don't expect a solution that works for (say) a=None, b=5, c=[]. I'm happy to restrict the arguments to all be arbitrary sequence-like objects. I'm even happy for somebody to give a solution with further restrictions, like "if I know before hand that all three are lists, then I do blah...". But state your restrictions up front. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list