Kelson Zawack <zawack...@gis.a-star.edu.sg> writes:
> […] if I want to iterate until an element that might or might not be > present is found I either wrap the while loop in a try block or break > out of a for loop. I'm not sure what exception you would catch, but that could be a good solution. The general solution would be to break from the ‘for’ loop when you find the terminating item. > Since an iterator having an end is not actually an exceptional case Right. You're not talking about the end of the iterator, though; you're talking about stopping *before* the end, when a particular item is reached. Either that, or you'll need to be clearer about what the problem is. A simple, complete, working example would help. > and the for construct is really for iterating though the entirety of a > list Or until something else happens to change the flow, such as a ‘break’ statement. > both of these solutions feel like greasy workarounds and thus not > very pythonic. Show us a simple, complete, working example, and let's see how Pythonic it looks. > Is there something I am missing? Is there a reason python iterators > don't have has_next functionality? Many iterators can't know whether they have a next item without actually generating that item. > What is the standard solution to this problem? I'm not sure that it is a problem. Let's see the example, to make it more concrete. -- \ “We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the | `\ sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his | _o__) wife is beautiful and his children smart.” —Henry L. Mencken | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
