[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruby has a neat little convenience when writing loops where you don't
care about the loop index: you just do n.times do { ... some
code ... } where n is an integer representing how many times you want
to execute some code.
In Python, the
On Feb 5, 2008 1:30 PM, Nick Craig-Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruby has a neat little convenience when writing loops where you don't
care about the loop index: you just do n.times do { ... some
code ... } where n is an integer representing how
In Python, the direct translation of this is a for loop. When the
index doesn't matter to me, I tend to write it as:
for _ in xrange (1,n):
some code
An alternative way of indicating that you don't care about the loop
index would be
for dummy in xrange (1,n):
some code
I usually
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:08:44 +, Bob Martin wrote:
Rexx's method is the way to do it : do 50
I tried writing Rexx code and executing it in Python, but I got
unexpected results, mostly SyntaxError exceptions. Is that a bug in
Python?
No-I'm-not-really-serious-ly yours,
--
Steven
--
in 332496 20080204 102153 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BJ=F6rn_Lindqvist?= [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
In Python, the direct translation of this is a for loop. When the
index doesn't matter to me, I tend to write it as:
for _ in xrange (1,n):
some code
An alternative way of indicating that you don't
On Feb 3, 2:03 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruby has a neat little convenience when writing loops where you don't
care about the loop index: you just do n.times do { ... some
code ... } where n is an integer representing how many times you want
to execute some code.
In Python, the direct
Because 0 is counted therefore i only have to do it 99 times
Thanks
On Feb 3, 2008 4:38 AM, Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
En Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:03:43 -0200, James Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
Sorry to be nitpicking, but people coming from other languages may get
James Matthews wrote:
Because 0 is counted therefore i only have to do it 99 times
No, Gabriel is correct. range(n) creates a list of integers starting at 0 and
going to n-1 (inclusive), not n.
In [1]: range(9)
Out[1]: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]
In [2]: len(range(9))
Out[2]: 9
In [3]:
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
[...]
On Feb 3, 2008 3:34 AM, Roy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, more to the point, I'd try to find variable name which described
why I was looping, even if I didn't actually use the value in theloop
body:
Me too. Government don't collect taxes by the
Jeff Schwab wrote:
How [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruby has a neat little convenience when writing loops where you don't
care about the loop index: you just do n.times do { ... some
code ... } where n is an integer representing how many times you want
to execute some code.
In Python, the
be careful, _ is thé translation function used in Il8N, Il10N
localization / internationalization
e.g.
print _( hello )
cheers,
Stef
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruby has a neat little convenience when writing loops where you don't
care about the loop index: you just do n.times do { ... some
Plain Python function are very often more powerful than classes:
def go(count):
... if not hasattr(go, 'count'):
... go.count = count
... if go.count = 0:
... del go.count
... return False
... go.count -= 1
... return True
...
while go(3):
... print 'hello'
...
hello
hello
Not to me. If I read for _ in ..., I wouldn't be quite sure what _ was.
Is it some magic piece of syntax I've forgotten about? Or something new
added to language while I wasn't paying attention (I still consider most
stuff added since 1.5 to be new-fangled :-)).
+1 to forgotten about
+1 to
On Feb 2, 9:48 pm, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruby has a neat little convenience when writing loops where you don't
care about the loop index: you just do n.times do { ... some
code ... } where n is an integer representing how many times you want
to
On Feb 3, 10:42 am, Zentrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to me. If I read for _ in ..., I wouldn't be quite sure what _ was.
Is it some magic piece of syntax I've forgotten about? Or something new
added to language while I wasn't paying attention (I still consider most
stuff added
On Feb 3, 11:20 am, Paul McGuire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... some code... some words ... more code, etc. ...]
But this still seems like a lot of work to avoid for x in range(n):.
I agree. The point of me using for _ in xrange (n) isn't to avoid
the for loop at all. What I wanted was a
My apologies if any attributions are messed up.
On Feb 3, 1:28 am, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:08:34 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
But I like using _ because it's only 1 character and communicates well
the idea I don't care about this
for action in repeat(f, n): action()
I don't know how 'Pythonic' this would be...
agree,
or this:
import itertools
def f1():
print hello
[f() for f in itertools.repeat(f1,6)]
tpt
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 18:03 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for _ in xrange (1,n):
some code
I'd always use i for loop variables I don't know what to call. It stands
for iterator or something. In a nested loop the next variable would
simply be called j and so on.
I also tend to use _, but
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:13:14 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should be `for _ in xrange(n)` to match the Ruby example. Both
iterate n times.
Only until Python 3.0, since the 'xrange' implementation will become
'range' at that time.
The point wasn't
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 05:33:16 -0800, Ivan Illarionov wrote:
Plain Python function are very often more powerful than classes:
def go(count):
... if not hasattr(go, 'count'):
... go.count = count
... if go.count = 0:
... del go.count
... return False
... go.count -= 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
where n is an integer representing how many times you want
to execute some code. ... I tend to write it as:
for _ in xrange (1,n):
some code
But this does it n-1 times, not n times.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Feb 4, 12:56 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 05:33:16 -0800, Ivan Illarionov wrote:
Plain Python function are very often more powerful than classes:
def go(count):
... if not hasattr(go, 'count'):
... go.count = count
... if go.count
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My apologies if any attributions are messed up.
On Feb 3, 1:28 am, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
If you want an explicit name, try a variation of dontcare. Assuming
that you're an English speaker.
I'm with Steven here. I typically use
Ruby has a neat little convenience when writing loops where you don't
care about the loop index: you just do n.times do { ... some
code ... } where n is an integer representing how many times you want
to execute some code.
In Python, the direct translation of this is a for loop. When the
index
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruby has a neat little convenience when writing loops where you don't
care about the loop index: you just do n.times do { ... some
code ... } where n is an integer representing how many times you want
to execute some code.
In Python,
What i do is a simple range call. for i in range(number of times i want to
repeat something)
I guess it comes from my C days for(i=0;i100;i++) { or in python for i in
range(99):
On Feb 3, 2008 3:34 AM, Roy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
En Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:03:43 -0200, James Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
Sorry to be nitpicking, but people coming from other languages may get
confused by the wrong examples:
What i do is a simple range call. for i in range(number of times i want
to repeat something)
I guess it
How [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruby has a neat little convenience when writing loops where you don't
care about the loop index: you just do n.times do { ... some
code ... } where n is an integer representing how many times you want
to execute some code.
In Python, the direct translation of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When the index doesn't matter to me, I tend to write it as:
for _ in xrange (1,n):
some code
An alternative way of indicating that you don't care about the loop
index would be
for dummy in xrange (1,n):
some code
But I like using _ because it's only
Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should be `for _ in xrange(n)` to match the Ruby example. Both
iterate n times.
Only until Python 3.0, since the 'xrange' implementation will become
'range' at that time.
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:03:54 -0800, miller.paul.w wrote:
for _ in xrange (1,n):
some code
...
So, I guess I'm wondering if anyone else uses a similar idiom and if
there are any downsides to it that I'm not aware of.
Sometimes, but not often.
If I'm writing a use-once-then-throw-away
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:08:34 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
But I like using _ because it's only 1 character and communicates well
the idea I don't care about this variable.
Not to me. As you noted, '_' is easily ambiguous. Explicit is better
than implicit; the name 'dummy' makes it much clearer.
33 matches
Mail list logo
