On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:47 pm, Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31 Mar 2008 06:54:29 GMT, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:02:44 +, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
I realize this has to
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:02:44 +, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
I realize this has to do with the extra read-ahead buffering documented for
file.next() and that I can work around it by using file.readline()
instead.
The problem is, for s in f is the elegant way of reading files line
by line. With
On 31 Mar 2008 06:54:29 GMT, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:02:44 +, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
I realize this has to do with the extra read-ahead buffering documented for
file.next() and that I can work around it by using file.readline()
instead.
The
On Mar 31, 11:47 pm, Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31 Mar 2008 06:54:29 GMT, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:02:44 +, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
I realize this has to do with the extra read-ahead buffering documented for
file.next() and
One thing that has annoyed me for quite some time. I apologize if it
has been discussed recently. If I run this program on Unix (Python
2.4.4, on Debian Linux)
import sys
for s in sys.stdin:
print '', s ,
and type the input on the keyboard rather than piping a file into it,
