On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:26:17 +0100, Mensanator mensana...@aol.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:38�pm, Rhodri James rho...@wildebst.demon.co.uk
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:59:04 +0100, Mensanator mensana...@aol.com
wrote:
And I'm not saying John nor the OP should stop
using what works for them.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:34:28 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
On Oct 14, 2:19�am, Dennis Lee Bieber wlfr...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:02:09 -0700 (PDT), Mensanator
mensana...@aol.com declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:
You're not getting away that easy.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:30:06 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
2009/10/14 Dennis Lee Bieber wlfr...@ix.netcom.com:
If anything -- I'd suggest a proposal to add a plain loop
as a
keyword in Python, whose effect is equivalent to a while True, but a
break must be used to exit said
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:17:40 +, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
But we have exceptions. And I know somebody, in other languages, thinks
it's a Best Practice to avoid using exceptions for flow control.
A lot of C++ programmers think so, and Stroustrup himself says
exceptions are for exceptional
to make sure that the verification logic is
consistent and that type-level inferences are valid. They generally
have very little to do with making sure that the program's actual
running time is bounded by anything reasonable. In fact infinite
loops are permitted in some such systems, but only
On Oct 14, 6:08�pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:34:28 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
On Oct 14, 2:19 am, Dennis Lee Bieber wlfr...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:02:09 -0700 (PDT), Mensanator
mensana...@aol.com declaimed the
something, but of those,
this is the best way, barring special circumstances.
For what it's worth, most of my loops run to completion, with no sign of
a break anywhere. �Some have a break, and use it. �Some, even, (dare I
say it?) use break *and* else! �
Breaks can be used properly, but it's
like
while not done_with_this
while not done_with_that
This is neither clean or well scoped.
Besides, since I _always_ initialize the flag
before entering a loop, the flag can be reused
and doesn't have to be deleted (as long as the
loops aren't nested). And since I don't use goto
On 2009-10-12, Gabriel Genellina gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
my_prissy_little_indicator_variable = true
while (my_prissy_little_indicator_variable){
body
}
isn't satisfying because it doesn't guard the body with any
assurance that the loop invariant will be true before you enter into
not done_with_that
This is neither clean or well scoped.
Besides, since I _always_ initialize the flag
before entering a loop, the flag can be reused
and doesn't have to be deleted (as long as the
loops aren't nested). And since I don't use goto,
there's no chance the initialization can
Mensanator wrote:
No, it's just that the OP was asking whether
avoiding while True is considered Best Practice.
How can you answer such a question without sounding
dogmatic?
I was just pointing out your style of programming seems inflexible.
Just another line that has to be interpreted
.
If I need more than one loop structure then I'll
do something like
� � while not done_with_this
� � while not done_with_that
Besides, since I _always_ initialize the flag
before entering a loop, the flag can be reused
and doesn't have to be deleted (as long as the
loops aren't nested). And since I
have to be deleted (as long as the
loops aren't nested). And since I don't use goto,
there's no chance the initialization can be avoided.
Initialising the flag is just another line of code that has to be
interpreted later. I didn't notice the initialisation in your original post.
Just another
On Oct 12, 4:59�pm, David C Ullrich ullr...@math.okstate.edu wrote:
kj wrote:
I'm coaching a group of biologists on basic Python scripting. �One
of my charges mentioned that he had come across the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True. �Of course, that's one
way to start
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The best I
have seen is that loops should have a single entry point and a single
exit point, to make it easier to reason about pre- and post-conditions.
But frankly I'm not convinced that's true -- or at least, multiple exists
shouldn't *necessarily* leader
On Oct 13, 5:38�pm, Rhodri James rho...@wildebst.demon.co.uk
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:59:04 +0100, Mensanator mensana...@aol.com wrote:
And I'm not saying John nor the OP should stop
using what works for them. But there are certainly
valid reasons for don't use while True to be
on
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Back in ancient days when dinosaurs walked the Earth,
and I was programming in THINK Pascal on Apple Macintosh System 6, I'd go
into nervous palpitations writing the equivalent of while True because
if I got it wrong, I'd lock up the machine and need to hit the power
kj wrote:
I'm coaching a group of biologists on basic Python scripting. One
of my charges mentioned that he had come across the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True.
It's possible this is something he was told in relation to
another language that has more options.
For example
On Sunday 11 October 2009 11:56:55 pm Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
In this situation, the middle exit works best -- using
non-optimal Python
while True:
lin = file_object.readline()
if not lin: break
do something with lin
Actually, in
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Luis Zarrabeitia ky...@uh.cu wrote:
Actually, in python, this works even better:
for lin in iter(file_object.readline, ):
... do something with lin
What about
with open(path_string) as f:
for line in f:
# do something
Cheers,
Xav
--
Luis Zarrabeitia wrote:
On Sunday 11 October 2009 11:56:55 pm Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
In this situation, the middle exit works best -- using
non-optimal Python
while True:
lin = file_object.readline()
if not lin: break
do something with lin
Actually, in python, this works even better:
On Monday 12 October 2009 09:47:23 am Xavier Ho wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Luis Zarrabeitia ky...@uh.cu wrote:
Actually, in python, this works even better:
for lin in iter(file_object.readline, ):
... do something with lin
What about
with open(path_string) as f:
On Oct 12, 3:36�am, greg g...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Mensanator wrote:
while not done:
� � ...
� � if n==1: done = True
� � ...
Seems to me that 'while not done:' is no better than
'while True:', because in both cases you have to look
inside the loop to find out what the exit
Mensanator wrote:
On Oct 12, 3:36�am, greg g...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Mensanator wrote:
while not done:
� � ...
� � if n==1: done = True
� � ...
Seems to me that 'while not done:' is no better than
'while True:', because in both cases you have to look
inside the loop to find out what
Mensanator wrote:
On Oct 12, 3:36�am, greg g...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Mensanator wrote:
while not done:
� � ...
� � if n==1: done = True
� � ...
Seems to me that 'while not done:' is no better than
'while True:', because in both cases you have to look
inside the loop to find out
to be deleted (as long as the
loops aren't nested). And since I don't use goto,
there's no chance the initialization can be avoided.
The best way to avoid the pitfalls of spaghetti
code is to not write it in the first place.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
initialize the flag
before entering a loop, the flag can be reused
and doesn't have to be deleted (as long as the
loops aren't nested). And since I don't use goto,
there's no chance the initialization can be avoided.
The best way to avoid the pitfalls of spaghetti
code is to not write
like
while not done_with_this
while not done_with_that
Besides, since I _always_ initialize the flag
before entering a loop, the flag can be reused
and doesn't have to be deleted (as long as the
loops aren't nested). And since I don't use goto,
there's no chance
[kj]
I use while True-loops often, and intend to continue doing this
while True, but I'm curious to know: how widespread is the
injunction against such loops? Has it reached the status of best
practice?
This is the first I've ever heard of such an quasi-injunction.
Like you, I use while True
kj no.em...@please.post writes:
I use while True-loops often, and intend to continue doing this
while True, but I'm curious to know: how widespread is the
injunction against such loops? Has it reached the status of best
practice?
E. W. Dijkstra used to advocate that every loop have exactly
of complication in loops. There's no need to
force every loop to have a single exit point (or for that matter, for
every function to have a single return). Compare the straightforward
implementation of a simple linear search:
for item in seq:
if cond(item):
print item
break
versus doing
On Saturday, 10 October 2009 22:15:21 kj wrote:
I'm coaching a group of biologists on basic Python scripting. One
of my charges mentioned that he had come across the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True. Of course, that's one
way to start an infinite loop, but this seems
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:15:21 +, kj wrote:
I use while True-loops often, and intend to continue doing this while
True, but I'm curious to know: how widespread is the injunction against
such loops? Has it reached the status of best practice?
Such an injunction probably made more sense back
On 2009-10-11, Hendrik van Rooyen hend...@microcorp.co.za wrote:
It is often necessary, in long running applications, to set up
loops that you would really like to run until the end of time.
- the equivalent of a serve forever construct. Then while
True is the obvious way to spell it.
Once
En Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:32:25 -0300, Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com
escribió:
I have many times screwed up while True-loops. When I thought I had
a safe exit condition which turned out to be never reached in some
rare corner cases. Leading to weird bugs with hanging threads. I have
seen
Mensanator wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:15�pm, kj no.em...@please.post wrote:
I'm coaching a group of biologists on basic Python scripting. �One
of my charges mentioned that he had come across the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True. �Of course, that's one
way to start an infinite loop
On Oct 11, 4:51�pm, bartc ba...@freeuk.com wrote:
Mensanator wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:15 pm, kj no.em...@please.post wrote:
I'm coaching a group of biologists on basic Python scripting. One
of my charges mentioned that he had come across the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True
On Oct 11, 2009, at 5:51 PM, bartc wrote:
Mensanator wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:15�pm, kj no.em...@please.post wrote:
I'm coaching a group of biologists on basic Python scripting. �One
of my charges mentioned that he had come across the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True
across the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True. Of course, that's one
way to start an infinite loop, but this seems hardly a sufficient
reason to avoid the construct altogether, as long as one includes
an exit that is always reached. (Actually, come to think
that he had come across the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True.[...]
If you know this exit that is always reached,
why do you pretend not to know it by writing
while True?
When I'm starting to code something I haven't yet fully worked out, it
often starts with an infinite loop
Python scripting. One
of my charges mentioned that he had come across the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True. Of course, that's one
way to start an infinite loop, but this seems hardly a sufficient
reason to avoid the construct altogether, as long as one includes
an exit
I'm coaching a group of biologists on basic Python scripting. One
of my charges mentioned that he had come across the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True. Of course, that's one
way to start an infinite loop, but this seems hardly a sufficient
reason to avoid the construct
I use while True-loops often, and intend to continue doing this
while True, but I'm curious to know: how widespread is the
injunction against such loops?
The injunction is nonexistent (save perhaps in people coming from another
language who insist that Python just /must/ have a proper do
I agree there is no rap against while True-loops. As an example these are
very useful especially when receiving continuous data over a queue, pipe
socket, or over any other connection. You set to block, receive data,
then process data and finally loop around to wait for next data segment
On Oct 10, 3:15�pm, kj no.em...@please.post wrote:
I'm coaching a group of biologists on basic Python scripting. �One
of my charges mentioned that he had come across the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True. �Of course, that's one
way to start an infinite loop, but this seems
the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True. =EF=BF=BDOf course, that's one
way to start an infinite loop, but this seems hardly a sufficient
reason to avoid the construct altogether, as long as one includes
an exit that is always reached. =EF=BF=BD(Actually, come to think
I have many times screwed up while True-loops. When I thought I had
a safe exit condition which turned out to be never reached in some
rare corner cases. Leading to weird bugs with hanging threads. I have
seen colleges screw up in the same way too. Often it is possible to
reformulate while True
=BDOn=
e
of my charges mentioned that he had come across the advice never
to use loops beginning with while True. =EF=BF=BDOf course, that's one
way to start an infinite loop, but this seems hardly a sufficient
reason to avoid the construct altogether, as long as one includes
an exit
On 2009-10-10, kj no.em...@please.post wrote:
I use while True-loops often, and intend to continue doing this
while True, but I'm curious to know: how widespread is the
injunction against such loops? Has it reached the status of
best practice?
This trend is ironic; I remember
kj wrote:
I use while True-loops often, and intend to continue doing this
while True,
Me too. Of course, in Python, 'while True' actually means 'while ^C not
pressed and window not closed and process not killed:',
whereas in old mainframe Fortran the equivalent might have meant 'while
my
Hi,
I want some command to jump out of nested loop. I'm wondering what is
the most convenient way to do so in python.
for i in range(10):
print i = , i
for j in range(10):
if i*10 + j == 50:
print i*10 + j
break # I want to jump out of the loops.
Regards,
Peng
--
http
:
I want some command to jump out of nested loop. I'm wondering what is
the most convenient way to do so in python.
http://www.google.com/search?q=python+nested+break
-[]z.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
# I want to jump out of the loops.
Regards,
Peng
if your code is in a function/method just use return
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
# I want to jump out of the loops.
Regards,
Peng
Can you please give the people who answered your question a simple
thank you??
~Sean
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
.
for i in range(10):
print i = , i
for j in range(10):
if i*10 + j == 50:
print i*10 + j
break # I want to jump out of the loops.
def myfunc(li, lim, mul):
for i in li:
print i = , i
for j in range(10):
if i*mul + j == lim:
return i*mul + j
print
Peng Yu pengyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I want some command to jump out of nested loop. I'm wondering what is
the most convenient way to do so in python.
I'm sure I'm wasting my breath by saying this, but would it hurt you
to actually check the list before posting? You're not the only person
to ever
On Sep 25, 12:01 pm, kj no.em...@please.post wrote:
In Perl, one can label loops for finer flow control. For example:
X: for my $x (@X) {
Y: for my $y (@Y) {
for my $z (@Z) {
next X if test1($x, $y, $z);
next Y if test2($x, $y, $z);
frobnicate($x, $y, $z
Raymond Hettinger:
Another approach for exiting multiple levels of loops is wrap the
inner calls in a function and return from them when needed:
def f(x):
for y in y:
for z in Z:
if test1(x,y,z):
return
frobnicate(x,y
In Perl, one can label loops for finer flow control. For example:
X: for my $x (@X) {
Y: for my $y (@Y) {
for my $z (@Z) {
next X if test1($x, $y, $z);
next Y if test2($x, $y, $z);
frobnicate($x, $y, $z);
}
glortz($x, $y);
}
splat($x);
}
What's considered
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM, kj no.em...@please.post wrote:
In Perl, one can label loops for finer flow control. For example:
X: for my $x (@X) {
Y: for my $y (@Y) {
for my $z (@Z) {
next X if test1($x, $y, $z);
next Y if test2($x, $y, $z);
frobnicate($x, $y, $z
kj wrote:
In Perl, one can label loops for finer flow control. For example:
X: for my $x (@X) {
Y: for my $y (@Y) {
for my $z (@Z) {
next X if test1($x, $y, $z);
next Y if test2($x, $y, $z);
frobnicate($x, $y, $z);
}
glortz($x, $y);
}
splat($x
Hi,
I am a begineer in Python. Actually I am encoding video files with different
bitrates using ffmpeg CLI. I wanted to ask you that how can I make loops so
that I can vary the bitrates in the CLI of ffmpeg??
I want to bulid a loop for the command below where i just want to vary
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 11:29 +0200, fakhar Gillani wrote:
Hi,
I am a begineer in Python. Actually I am encoding video files with
different bitrates using ffmpeg CLI. I wanted to ask you that how can
I make loops so that I can vary the bitrates in the CLI of ffmpeg??
I want to bulid
On Jul 23, 11:29 pm, Nick Craig-Wood n...@craig-wood.com wrote:
The syntax would be something like:
def work():
showstatus(building)
r = yield runshell(make)
showstatus(installing)
r = yield runshell(make install)
showstatus(Success)
mygui.startwork(work)
#
Apologies for the long subject line, here it is again:
Pep 342 (val = yield MyGenerator(foo)), synchronous os.system() that
doesn't block gui event loops
On Jul 21, 7:48 pm, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
The idea:
To run functions that execute a series of system commands without
Ville Vainio vivai...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone implementing something like what the subject line
indicates?
The idea:
To run functions that execute a series of system commands without
blocking the ui, *and* without adding state machine logic.
The syntax would be something
Ville Vainio wrote:
Has anyone implementing something like what the subject line
indicates?
The idea:
To run functions that execute a series of system commands without
blocking the ui, *and* without adding state machine logic.
At some level, there's going to be state machine logic.
You
Ville Vainio wrote:
Has anyone implementing something like what the subject line
indicates?
Your subject line is so long that it is cut off even on my wide screen.
Better to repeat the question in the body.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Has anyone implementing something like what the subject line
indicates?
The idea:
To run functions that execute a series of system commands without
blocking the ui, *and* without adding state machine logic.
The syntax would be something like:
def work():
showstatus(building)
r = yield
On Jul 20, 1:12 pm, Ville Vainio vivai...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone implementing something like what the subject line
ImplentED.
I don't think this is that hard to do in the first place, but a
generic solution that can be easily tuned for different gui
mainloops would be nice.
--
On Jul 20, 1:12 pm, Ville Vainio vivai...@gmail.com wrote:
I imagine runshell() would be implemented in terms of QProcess, or
subprocess.Popen/os.system and a worker thread.
Actually, the problem is that of general serialization of worker
thread operations. That is, it could be something akin
In article mailman.3048.1247462046.8015.python-l...@python.org,
Vincent Gulinao vincent.guli...@gmail.com wrote:
lst = list()
while True:
if len(lst) == SOME_NUMBER:
return lst
Q2: operating on list from threads (mostly appends) must be safe,
right (synchronization)?
Vincent Gulinao vincent.guli...@gmail.com (VG) wrote:
VG lst = list()
VG (lst populated by async twisted deferred callbacks)
VG while True:
VGif len(lst) == SOME_NUMBER:
VGreturn lst
VG Q1: is this a common OK practice? I'm worried infinite loops hogs memory.
VG Q2: operating
On Jul 13, 6:06 am, Vincent Gulinao vincent.guli...@gmail.com wrote:
lst = list()
(lst populated by async twisted deferred callbacks)
while True:
if len(lst) == SOME_NUMBER:
return lst
Q1: is this a common OK practice? I'm worried infinite loops hogs memory.
Q2
In message mailman.3048.1247462046.8015.python-l...@python.org, Vincent
Gulinao wrote:
Q1: is this a common OK practice? I'm worried infinite loops hogs memory.
The problem is not that the loop is infinite, but that it busy-waits,
hogging CPU.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo
lst = list()
(lst populated by async twisted deferred callbacks)
while True:
if len(lst) == SOME_NUMBER:
return lst
Q1: is this a common OK practice? I'm worried infinite loops hogs memory.
Q2: operating on list from threads (mostly appends) must be safe,
right
New submission from Gabriel Koritzky naoehomeuem...@gmail.com:
I don't know if something like this has been said before, so if it did
just ignore this.
I have noticed that very few programming languages use simple for loops.
Python itself doesn't have a really simple one. So here's my
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
This is not a place for such discussion. Please post on comp.lang.python.
--
nosy: +pitrou
resolution: - invalid
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Lars Gustäbel l...@gustaebel.de added the comment:
I just checked in a fix for the problem, r70523-70527. Thank you very
much for your report.
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
versions: +Python 2.5
___
Python tracker
This idea has already been proposed and rejected. But discuss away as
you wish ;=).
tjr
Where is that? I didn't see any related pep's. Could you post a link?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
pang wrote:
This idea has already been proposed and rejected. But discuss away as
you wish ;=).
tjr
Where is that?
py-dev and/or python-ideas lists within last year
I didn't see any related pep's.
Though helpful, not too many people write PEPs to document rejections.
Could you post a
Sorry, no.
tjr
well, thank you
Even now it's difficult to find the discussion, but at least I know
about python-ideas.
Thanks to all that replied.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
En Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:28:10 -0200, pang pablo.ang...@uam.es escribió:
Even now it's difficult to find the discussion, but at least I know
about python-ideas.
Try http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.ideas
--
Gabriel Genellina
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Hello,
This is an idea about something I'd like to see implemented in
python.
I understand that's the purpose of PEPs, so I'll write it as a PEP,
but
send it here to receive your valuable feedback.
Abstract
This is a proposal to increase the richness of for loops, only to the
extent
This is a proposal to increase the richness of for loops, only to the
extent that it equals that of list and generator comprehensions. In
the
opinion of the proponent, this will make the language more uniform and
would reduce the excessive level of nesting that is required
sometimes,
without introducing
Hello,
This is an idea about something I'd like to see
implemented in python. I understand that's the purpose of
PEPs, so I'll write it as a PEP, but send it here to receive
your valuable feedback.
Abstract
This is a proposal to increase the richness of for loops,
only to the extent
for x in range(10) for y in range(10) if x+y==5:
print x,y
What is that supposed to mean? Nested looping? Why is that (confusing
thing) better than:
from itertools import product
for x, y in product(range(10), range(10)) if x + y == 5:
print x, y
That confusing thing is what
En Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:15:30 -0200, pang pablo.ang...@uam.es escribió:
This is an idea about something I'd like to see implemented in
python.
The python-ideas list exists to discuss this sort of things.
The syntax of a for loop is restricted to the following:
for element in list:
pang wrote:
This is a proposal to increase the richness of for loops, only to the
extent that it equals that of list and generator comprehensions.
This idea has already been proposed and rejected. But discuss away as
you wish ;=).
tjr
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python
.
--
components: Library (Lib)
messages: 80567
nosy: fijal
severity: normal
status: open
title: tarfile loops forever on broken input
versions: Python 2.4, Python 2.5, Python 2.6, Python 2.7
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Changes by Lars Gustäbel l...@gustaebel.de:
--
assignee: - lars.gustaebel
nosy: +lars.gustaebel
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue5068
___
Lars Gustäbel l...@gustaebel.de added the comment:
Thanks for the report. The problem is in fact easy to reproduce.
_BZ2Proxy hangs if it is passed a file object with either no data or
with a partial bzipped file. For example try:
tarfile.open(mode=r:bz2, fileobj=StringIO.StringIO())
I will
James Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
for x in (2**i for i in xrange(10)):
print x
This is by far the most concise solution I've seen so far.
print '\n'.join(str(2**i) for i in xrange(10))
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:45:47 -0700, John Machin wrote:
On Oct 19, 2:30 pm, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
[snip]
making your code easy to read and easy to maintain is far more
important.
for x in (2**i for i in xrange(10)):
print x
will also print 1, 2,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:45:47 -0700, John Machin wrote:
On Oct 19, 2:30 pm, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
[snip]
making your code easy to read and easy to maintain is far more
important.
for x in (2**i for i in xrange(10)):
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 03:17:51 -0700, John Machin wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:45:47 -0700, John Machin wrote:
On Oct 19, 2:30 pm, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
[snip]
making your code easy to read and easy to maintain is far more
how can I do width python a normal for loop width tree conditions like
for example :
for x=1;x=100;x+x:
print x
thanks
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Gandalf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how can I do width python a normal for loop width tree conditions like
for example :
for x=1;x=100;x+x:
print x
What you wrote would appear to be an infinite loop so I'll assume you meant
to assign something to x each time round the loop as well. The
On Oct 18, 12:39 pm, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Gandalf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how can I do width python a normal for loop width tree conditions like
for example :
for x=1;x=100;x+x:
print x
What you wrote would appear to be an infinite loop so I'll assume you meant
Gandalf wrote:
On Oct 18, 12:39 pm, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Gandalf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how can I do width python a normal for loop width tree conditions like
for example :
for x=1;x=100;x+x:
print x
What you wrote would appear to be an infinite loop so I'll assume you
701 - 800 of 1229 matches
Mail list logo
