On 09/23/12 17:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:45:53 -0700, jimbo1qaz wrote: >> On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:36:19 AM UTC-7, jimbo1qaz wrote: >>> Am I missing something obvious, or do I have to manually put in a >>> counter in the for loops? That's a very basic request, but I couldn't >>> find anything in the documentation. >> >> Ya, they should really give a better way, but for now, enumerate works >> pretty well. > > Define "a better way". What did you have in mind that would work better?
I can only imagine jimbo1qaz intended "a more C-like way". blech. I **far** prefer The Python Way™. The vast majority of the time, I'm looping over some iterable where indices would only get in the way of readability. Tuple-unpacking the results of enumerate() is an elegant way of getting both the items+indices on the seldom occasion I need the index too (though I'm minorly miffed that enumerate()'s starting-offset wasn't back-ported into earlier 2.x versions and have had to code around it for 1-based indexing; either extra "+1"s or whip up my own simple enumerate() generator). -tkc -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
