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 execute "some code."
>
> Would something like this be acceptable? It still requires a loop
> variable, plus an extra line of code per loop, plus a one-time class
> definition (and import into each client module), and it's probably
> slower than "for dummy in range." The syntax might be more inuitive
> than "dummy" or "_" in a for loop, though.
>
> class Go:
> def __init__(self, count):
> self.count = count
>
> def again(self):
> if self.count <= 0:
> return False
> self.count -= 1
> return True
>
> go = Go(3)
> while go.again():
> print "hello"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's something similar, in a decorator:
def iterative(fn):
def times_(n):
i = 0
while i < n:
fn()
i += 1
fn.times = times_
return fn
@iterative
def aFunction():
print "this is a function"
aFunction.times(3)
Prints:
this is a function
this is a function
this is a function
But this still seems like a lot of work to avoid "for x in range(n):".
-- Paul
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
