On Nov 15, 2007 12:48 PM, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 1:18 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 2007 10:30 AM, Isaac Morland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So I wrote a Signature class. Instances of the class represent all the
> > > informati
* Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-16 18:31:12 -0500]:
>
> "Gustavo Carneiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |I am finding myself often doing for loops over a subset of a list, like:
> |
> |for r in results:
> |if r.numNodes != numNode
"Gustavo Carneiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|I am finding myself often doing for loops over a subset of a list, like:
|
|for r in results:
|if r.numNodes != numNodes:
|continue
|# do something with r
Why write it
On Nov 15, 2007 12:48 PM, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 1:18 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 2007 10:30 AM, Isaac Morland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So I wrote a Signature class. Instances of the class represent all the
> > > informati
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (11/09/07 - 11/16/07)
Tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
1323 open (+13) / 11612 closed (+25) / 12935 total (+38)
Open issues with patches: 418
Average durati
I started thinking about itertools when I saw this then I realised
that your question was about changing the syntax to produce fewer
lines of code rather than writing more effiicient code.. seemed like a
case where you could use ifilter.
//Martin
are talking about cvhanging the syntax rQu
On 16/11/2007, Gustavo Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I can do that, as well as I can use the 'continue' statement, but both
> versions are slightly more verbose and less clear than what I propose.
This should go to python-ideas, I guess. (FWIW, I can see the
attraction of the idea, bu
2007/11/16, Gustavo Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, I can do that, as well as I can use the 'continue' statement, but both
> versions are slightly more verbose and less clear than what I propose.
The question is: is this slightly more verbosity and less clarity
worth enough as to make a synt
On 16/11/2007, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Gustavo Carneiro wrote:
> > I am finding myself often doing for loops over a subset of a list, like:
> >
> > for r in results:
> > if r.numNodes != numNodes:
> > continue
> > # do something with
Gustavo Carneiro wrote:
> I am finding myself often doing for loops over a subset of a list, like:
>
> for r in results:
> if r.numNodes != numNodes:
> continue
> # do something with r
>
> It would be nice if the plain for loop was as flexible
I am finding myself often doing for loops over a subset of a list, like:
for r in results:
if r.numNodes != numNodes:
continue
# do something with r
It would be nice if the plain for loop was as flexible as list
comprehensions and allowed an optiona
11 matches
Mail list logo
