On 26 Mar, 04:31, Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com wrote:
Stef Mientki wrote:
Now it would be nice to allow iteration over others too, like None .
a = None
for item in a :
do_something_with_item
To me that makes about as much sense as writing
for x in 1.0:
On 26 Mar, 08:18, Niklas Norrthon niklas.norrt...@hotmail.com wrote:
But that can easily be achieved with the or operator as Michiel
Overton notes elsewhere in this thread:
Michiel Overtoom was what I meant to write. My apologies!
def some_function(arg, coll=None):
do_stuff(arg)
For ex: to check list 'A' is empty or not..
if A == []:
if A.count == 0:
if len(A) == 0:
if not A:
Thanks,
Srini
Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to
http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:38 PM, srinivasan srinivas
sri_anna...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
For ex: to check list 'A' is empty or not..
if A == []:
if A.count == 0:
if len(A) == 0:
if not A:
I would go for the last one, because it has the highest likelihood of
doing what is intended when fed with
srinivasan srinivas wrote:
For ex: to check list 'A' is empty or not..
if A == []:
if A.count == 0:
if len(A) == 0:
if not A:
if not A
-tkc
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
srinivasan srinivas:
For ex: to check list 'A' is empty or not..
Empty collections are false:
if somelist:
... # somelist isn't empty
else:
... # somelist is empty
Bye,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mar 26, 1:38 am, srinivasan srinivas sri_anna...@yahoo.co.in
wrote:
Depends on what you mean by best; like graduation day at
kindergarten, everyone gets a prize:
For ex: to check list 'A' is empty or not..
if A == []:
most obviously correct
if A.count == 0:
best use of imagination
if
i will go against the grain slightly and say that len is probably the
best compromise in most situations (although i admit i don't know what
count is) because i think it will work when you expect it to and break
when you have a bug in your program.
using a simple boolean is more robust (and what
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:21 PM, andrew cooke and...@acooke.org wrote:
i will go against the grain slightly and say that len is probably the
best compromise in most situations (although i admit i don't know what
count is) because i think it will work when you expect it to and break
when you
On Mar 26, 2:21 am, andrew cooke and...@acooke.org wrote:
i will go against the grain slightly and say that len is probably the
best compromise in most situations (although i admit i don't know what
count is) because i think it will work when you expect it to and break
when you have a bug in
On Mar 25, 7:38 am, srinivasan srinivas sri_anna...@yahoo.co.in
wrote:
For ex: to check list 'A' is empty or not..
if A == []:
if A.count == 0:
if len(A) == 0:
if not A:
PEP 8 recommends the latter.
Raymond
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Andre Engels wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:21 PM, andrew cooke and...@acooke.org wrote:
i will go against the grain slightly and say that len is probably the
best compromise in most situations (although i admit i don't know what
[...]
but i may be wrong - are there any containers (apart
andrew cooke wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:21 PM, andrew cooke and...@acooke.org wrote:
i will go against the grain slightly and say that len is probably the
best compromise in most situations (although i admit i don't know what
[...]
but i may be
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Mar 25, 7:38 am, srinivasan srinivas sri_anna...@yahoo.co.in
wrote:
For ex: to check list 'A' is empty or not..
if A == []:
if A.count == 0:
if len(A) == 0:
if not A:
PEP 8 recommends the latter.
Raymond
I can't seem to find where this recommendation is
Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Mar 25, 7:38 am, srinivasan srinivas sri_anna...@yahoo.co.in
wrote:
if not A:
PEP 8 recommends the latter.
I can't seem to find where this recommendation is mentioned or implied.
it's the next-to-last sub-item, just before the references.
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 21:26 +, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
PEP 8 recommends the latter.
Raymond
I can't seem to find where this recommendation is mentioned or implied.
Wow, you must not have looked very hard:
1. Point your browser to http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/
On 25 Mar 2009, at 21:29 , Stef Mientki wrote:
Now it would be nice to allow iteration over others too, like None .
a = None
for item in a :
do_something_with_item
I saw this technique used in CherryPy:
a=None
for item in a or []:
...print item
...
a=[1,2,3]
for
Albert Hopkins wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 21:26 +, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
PEP 8 recommends the latter.
Raymond
I can't seem to find where this recommendation is mentioned or implied.
Wow, you must not have looked very hard:
1. Point your browser to
On Mar 25, 1:19 pm, andrew cooke and...@acooke.org wrote:
actually, the implication of what you said is probably worth emphasising
to the original poster: often you don't need to test whether a list is
empty or not, you simply iterate over its contents:
for x in foo:
# do something
On Mar 25, 8:27 am, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:21 PM, andrew cooke and...@acooke.org wrote:
but i may be wrong - are there any containers (apart from pathological
hand-crafted examples) that would not define __len__()?
When writing my answer, I
On Mar 25, 7:38 am, srinivasan srinivas sri_anna...@yahoo.co.in
wrote:
For ex: to check list 'A' is empty or not..
if A == []:
if A.count == 0:
if len(A) == 0:
if not A:
PEP 8 recommends the last one, and most Pythonistas here probably
would as well, so that is probably what you should do if
For ex: to check list 'A' is empty or not..
if A == []:
if A.count == 0:
if len(A) == 0:
if not A:
Connect with friends all over the world. Get Yahoo! India Messenger at
http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/?wm=n/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I believe if not A: is the most pythonic, but depending on what
you're doing a list might not be the right thing to use at all. A
little while ago I got some help from this malining list in dealing
with a situation where lists really were not efficient (finding prime
numbers...for fun). In my case
Stef Mientki wrote:
andrew cooke wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:21 PM, andrew cooke and...@acooke.org wrote:
i will go against the grain slightly and say that len is probably the
best compromise in most situations (although i admit i don't know what
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:26:10 +, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Mar 25, 7:38 am, srinivasan srinivas sri_anna...@yahoo.co.in
wrote:
For ex: to check list 'A' is empty or not.. if A == []:
if A.count == 0:
if len(A) == 0:
if not A:
...
Personally I would go for
25 matches
Mail list logo
