On Dec 12, 7:51 am, Marco Mariani ma...@sferacarta.com wrote:
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
I am not doing it, because I need it. I can as well use if not elem
is None,
I suggest if elem is not None, which is not quite the same.
They are semantically the same. In theory, Filip's would run
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:39:45 +, Lie Ryan wrote:
I was just expressing the
preference that operators should be composed of a single word,
especially since none of the other operators are multi-words
Then you should have said so, instead of introducing red-herrings about
tired programmers.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:02:24 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
...
Tim Chase wrote:
If you want to literally remove None objects from a list(or
mutable sequence)
def deNone(alist):
n=len(alist)
i=j=0
while i n:
if alist[i] is not None:
alist[j] =
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 02:11 +, Lie Ryan wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:55:20 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:18:36 +, Lie Ryan wrote:
Personally, I'd prefer VB's version:
foo IsNot bar
or in pseudo-python
foo isnot bar
since that would make it less
Scott David Daniels:
If you want to keep the original's method, but do it in a more Pythonic
way, I would suggest:
def deNone4(alist):
j = 0
for val in alist:
if val is not None:
alist[j] = val
j += 1
del
On 2008-12-12, Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
Hi!
I would like to iterate over a sequence nad ignore all None objects.
The most obvious way is explicitly checking if element is not None,
but it takes too much space. And I would like to get something faster.
I can use
[ sth for sth in self.__sth
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:55:20 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:18:36 +, Lie Ryan wrote:
Personally, I'd prefer VB's version:
foo IsNot bar
or in pseudo-python
foo isnot bar
since that would make it less ambiguous.
a is not b is no more ambiguous than 1+2*3.
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:11:10 +, Lie Ryan wrote:
So given the normal precedence rules of Python, there is no ambiguity.
True, you have to learn the rules, but that's no hardship.
*I* know about the precedence rule, but a newbie or a tired programmer
might not. He might want to reverse
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:21:21 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:11:10 +, Lie Ryan wrote:
So given the normal precedence rules of Python, there is no ambiguity.
True, you have to learn the rules, but that's no hardship.
*I* know about the precedence rule, but a newbie
Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com writes:
I was just expressing the preference that operators should be
composed of a single word, especially since none of the other
operators are multi-words (Special cases aren't special enough to
break the rules). The only advantage of using 'is not' over
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:02:24 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
Tim Chase wrote:
If you want to literally remove None objects from a list(or
mutable sequence)
def deNone(alist):
n=len(alist)
i=j=0
while i n:
if alist[i] is not None:
alist[j] = alist[i]
j += 1
Just to be clear, I decided to use generator by alex23, as it seems
simple, short and understandable. Still reading this thread was quite
interesting, thanks :-)
--
Filip Gruszczyński
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven D'Aprano:
The algorithm is unclear: try explaining
what you are doing in English, and see how difficult it is.
That algorithm is a standard one, and quite clear. Any programmer
worth his/her/hir salt has to be able to understand that.
I agree that the idiom with the list comp
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:07:53 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Now, sure, most of the work in Tim's version is executed in fast C code
instead of slow Python code.
Say what???
I'm sorry, I must have been smoking crack when I wrote that. It does
nothing of the sort. Tim's version is pure Python.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:00:09 -0800, bearophileHUGS wrote:
Steven D'Aprano:
The algorithm is unclear: try explaining what you are doing in English,
and see how difficult it is.
That algorithm is a standard one, and quite clear. Any programmer worth
his/her/hir salt has to be able to
Hi!
I would like to iterate over a sequence nad ignore all None objects.
The most obvious way is explicitly checking if element is not None,
but it takes too much space. And I would like to get something faster.
I can use
[ sth for sth in self.__sth if not sth is None ], but I don't know if
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
I would like to iterate over a sequence nad ignore all None objects.
The most obvious way is explicitly checking if element is not None,
but it takes too much space.
That doesn't make much sense; why would iterating over the sequence take
more _space_?
--
Erik Max
On Dec 12, 7:18 pm, Filip Gruszczyński grusz...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I would like to iterate over a sequence nad ignore all None objects.
The most obvious way is explicitly checking if element is not None,
but it takes too much space. And I would like to get something faster.
I can use
[
I don't mean memory, but space in code ;-)
I'll try this generator :)
--
Filip Gruszczyński
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
2008/12/12 Filip Gruszczyński grusz...@gmail.com:
I don't mean memory, but space in code ;-)
Trying to save printer paper for your listings, then?
--
Tim Rowe
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:18:35 +0100, Filip Gruszczyński
wrote:
Hi!
I would like to iterate over a sequence nad ignore all None objects. The
most obvious way is explicitly checking if element is not None, but it
takes too much space.
Too much space???
seq = [x for x in seq if x is not None]
I am not doing it, because I need it. I can as well use if not elem
is None, but I just wanted to know, if there is some better way of
doing this. I like to know :-)
And I can't understand why you are becoming so aggressive because of
this. Just because I asked for that, doesn't mean, that I will
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
Hi!
I would like to iterate over a sequence nad ignore all None objects.
The most obvious way is explicitly checking if element is not None,
but it takes too much space. And I would like to get something faster.
I can use
[ sth for sth in self.__sth if not sth is
On Dec 12, 8:08 am, Filip Gruszczyński grusz...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not doing it, because I need it. I can as well use if not elem
is None, but I just wanted to know, if there is some better way of
doing this. I like to know :-)
And I can't understand why you are becoming so aggressive
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
I checked itertools, but the only thing that
seemed ok, was ifilter - this requires seperate function though, so
doesn't seem too short.
is this too much long?
from itertools import ifilter
for element in ifilter(lambda x: x is not None, [0,1,2,None,3,None,4]):
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
I am not doing it, because I need it. I can as well use if not elem
is None,
I suggest if elem is not None, which is not quite the same.
If you slip such an error in a post, I suggest to practice some time
writing correct code before having one-liner contests with
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:51:15 +0100, Marco Mariani wrote:
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
I am not doing it, because I need it. I can as well use if not elem is
None,
I suggest if elem is not None, which is not quite the same.
In which way is it not the same? Has the same behavior at least:
At 2008-12-12T15:51:15Z, Marco Mariani ma...@sferacarta.com writes:
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
I am not doing it, because I need it. I can as well use if not elem
is None,
I suggest if elem is not None, which is not quite the same.
So what's the difference exactly? foo is not None is
Kirk Strauser wrote:
So what's the difference exactly? foo is not None is actually surprising
to me, since not None is True. 0 is True is False, but 0 is not None
is True. Why is that?
Cause I was tired of course, and got the not precedente not right!! Argh
--
Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2008-12-12T15:51:15Z, Marco Mariani ma...@sferacarta.com writes:
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
I am not doing it, because I need it. I can as well use if not elem
is None,
I suggest if elem is not None, which is not quite the same.
So what's the difference exactly?
Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2008-12-12T15:51:15Z, Marco Mariani ma...@sferacarta.com writes:
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
I am not doing it, because I need it. I can as well use if not elem
is None,
I suggest if elem is not None, which is not quite the same.
So what's the difference exactly?
alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com writes:
Rather than a list comprehension, use a generator expression:
for item in (x for x in sequence if x is not None):
do_something(x)
I much prefer
for item in sequence:
if x is not None:
do_something(x)
--
Arnaud
--
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:50:38 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2008-12-12T15:51:15Z, Marco Mariani ma...@sferacarta.com writes:
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
I am not doing it, because I need it. I can as well use if not elem
is None,
I suggest if elem is not None, which
If you want to literally remove None objects from a list(or mutable
sequence)
def deNone(alist):
n=len(alist)
i=j=0
while i n:
if alist[i] is not None:
alist[j] = alist[i]
j += 1
i += 1
alist[j:i] = []
blist=[None,1,None,2,None,3,None,None,4,None]
deNone(blist)
If you want to literally remove None objects from a list(or mutable
sequence)
def deNone(alist):
n=len(alist)
i=j=0
while i n:
if alist[i] is not None:
alist[j] = alist[i]
j += 1
i += 1
alist[j:i] = []
blist=[None,1,None,2,None,3,None,None,4,None]
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:08:23 -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2008-12-12T15:51:15Z, Marco Mariani ma...@sferacarta.com writes:
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
I am not doing it, because I need it. I can as well use if not elem
is None,
I suggest if elem is not None, which is not quite the same.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:18:36 +, Lie Ryan wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:50:38 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2008-12-12T15:51:15Z, Marco Mariani ma...@sferacarta.com writes:
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
I am not doing it, because I need it. I can as well use if not
Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
I don't mean memory, but space in code ;-)
Your goal should be clarity of code, not saving keystrokes. Writing
something that is compact in terms of the amount of code to write does
not mean its function is clear or even that it is more efficient to run,
for that
Tim Chase wrote:
If you want to literally remove None objects from a list(or
mutable sequence)
def deNone(alist):
n=len(alist)
i=j=0
while i n:
if alist[i] is not None:
alist[j] = alist[i]
j += 1
i += 1
alist[j:i] = []
39 matches
Mail list logo
