Christos Georgiou wrote:
> "Paolino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>>What if I want to chain an infinite list of iterables?
>>Shouldn't itertools.chain be built to handle that?
>
>
> Raymond already suggested a four-line function that does exactly that.
>
"Paolino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What if I want to chain an infinite list of iterables?
> Shouldn't itertools.chain be built to handle that?
Raymond already suggested a four-line function that does exactly that.
Create your own personal-library modules co
[Paolino]
> >>Well this happened after I tried instinctively
> >>itertools.chain(child.method() for child in self).
As Jack's note points out, your proposed signature is incompatible with
the one we have now. I recommend creating your own version:
def paolino_chain(iterables):
for
Jack Diederich wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 07:58:40PM +0200, Paolino wrote:
>
>>Working on a tree library I've found myself writing
>>itertools.chain(*[child.method() for child in self]).
>>Well this happened after I tried instinctively
>>itertools.chain(child.method() for child in self).
>
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 07:58:40PM +0200, Paolino wrote:
> Working on a tree library I've found myself writing
> itertools.chain(*[child.method() for child in self]).
> Well this happened after I tried instinctively
> itertools.chain(child.method() for child in self).
>
> Is there a reason for t
Working on a tree library I've found myself writing
itertools.chain(*[child.method() for child in self]).
Well this happened after I tried instinctively
itertools.chain(child.method() for child in self).
Is there a reason for this signature ?
Regards paolino
