On 9/7/2010 9:40 PM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Thomas Jollans wrote:
Hmm. Modifying an object while iterating over it isn't a great idea,
ever:
I wouldn't say never.
How about Modifying a collection while iterating over it without
understanding the dangers is a bad idea.
Algorithms that
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:17:02 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 9/7/2010 9:40 PM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Thomas Jollans wrote:
Hmm. Modifying an object while iterating over it isn't a great idea,
ever:
I wouldn't say never.
How about Modifying a collection while iterating over it without
Thomas Jollans wrote:
Hmm. Modifying an object while iterating over it isn't a great idea, ever:
I wouldn't say never. Algorithms that calculate some kind of
transitive closure can be expressed rather neatly by appending
items to a list being iterated over.
You can accommodate that kind of
Hi,
What is better:
def __iter__(self):
for i in len(self):
yield self[i]
or
def __iter__(self):
return iter([self[i] for i in range(len(self))])
The first one, I would say is more correct,
however what if in a middle of an iteration
the object changes in length? Then, the
On Friday 03 September 2010, it occurred to ernest to exclaim:
Hi,
What is better:
def __iter__(self):
for i in len(self):
yield self[i]
or
def __iter__(self):
return iter([self[i] for i in range(len(self))])
The first one, I would say is more correct,
however
On 03/09/2010 20:35, ernest wrote:
Hi,
What is better:
def __iter__(self):
for i in len(self):
yield self[i]
or
def __iter__(self):
return iter([self[i] for i in range(len(self))])
The first one, I would say is more correct,
however what if in a middle of an iteration
the
