In reviewing somebody else's code today, I found the following
construct (eliding some details):
f = open(filename)
for line in f:
if re.search(pattern1, line):
outer_line = f.next()
for inner_line in f:
if re.search(pattern2, inner_line):
On 23 April 2013 16:40, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In reviewing somebody else's code today, I found the following
construct (eliding some details):
f = open(filename)
for line in f:
if re.search(pattern1, line):
outer_line = f.next()
for
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In reviewing somebody else's code today, I found the following
construct (eliding some details):
f = open(filename)
for line in f:
if re.search(pattern1, line):
outer_line = f.next()
Roy Smith wrote:
In reviewing somebody else's code today, I found the following
construct (eliding some details):
f = open(filename)
for line in f:
if re.search(pattern1, line):
outer_line = f.next()
for inner_line in f:
if re.search(pattern2,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In reviewing somebody else's code today, I found the following
construct (eliding some details):
f = open(filename)
for line in f:
if re.search(pattern1, line):
outer_line = f.next()
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
The definition of the for loop is sufficiently simple that this is
safe, with the caveat already mentioned (that __iter__ is just
returning self). And calling next() inside the loop will simply
terminate the loop if
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:40:31 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
In reviewing somebody else's code today, I found the following construct
(eliding some details):
f = open(filename)
for line in f:
if re.search(pattern1, line):
outer_line = f.next()
for
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
The definition of the for loop is sufficiently simple that this is
safe, with the caveat already mentioned (that __iter__ is just
returning self).
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
The definition of the for loop is sufficiently simple that this is
safe, with the caveat already mentioned (that __iter__ is just
returning self).
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:42:41 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
I love this list. If I make a mistake, it's sure to be caught by someone
else.
No it's not!
Are-you-here-for-the-five-minute-argument-or-the-full-ten-minutes-ly y'rs,
--
Steven
--
On 4/23/2013 11:40 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
In reviewing somebody else's code today, I found the following
construct (eliding some details):
f = open(filename)
for line in f:
if re.search(pattern1, line):
outer_line = f.next()
for inner_line in f:
On 23 April 2013 21:49, Terry Jan Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
ri= iter(range(3))
for i in ri:
for j in ri:
print(i,j)
# this is somewhat deceptive as the outer loop executes just once
0 1
0 2
I personally would add a 'break' after 'outer_line = next(f)', since the
first
On 23 April 2013 17:30, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
The definition of the for loop is sufficiently simple that this is
safe, with the caveat already mentioned (that __iter__ is just
returning self). And calling
On 23 April 2013 22:29, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
I just thought I'd add that Python 3 has a convenient way to avoid
this problem with next() which is to use the starred unpacking syntax:
numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4]
first, *numbers = numbers
That creates a new list
On 23 April 2013 22:41, Joshua Landau joshua.landau...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 April 2013 22:29, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
I just thought I'd add that Python 3 has a convenient way to avoid
this problem with next() which is to use the starred unpacking syntax:
numbers
15 matches
Mail list logo
