On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Tim Chase <python.l...@tim.thechases.com>wrote:
> On 2013-09-17 16:21, Ferrous Cranus wrote: > > I just want to say tot he program that > > > > that only run the for statement if and only if person=='George' > > > > I dont see nay reason as to why this fails > > > > perhaps like: > > > > for times in range(0, 5) if person=='George': > > > > but that fails too... > > there must be written on soem way. > > The canonical way to do this is the obvious: > > if person == "George": > for times in range(0, 5): > ... > > That said, you can do stupid things to abstract the logic like > > def iterate_if(condition, iterable): > if condition: > for item in iterable: > yield item > > which you can use something like > > for times in iterate_if(person == "George", range(0,5)): > ... > > but I don't advise it. Mainly, because the iterable will be > evaluated when passed as an argument, which incurs the runtime cost. > In the canonical form, if the test isn't passed, the range(n,m) is > never even evaluated. > > -tkc > > > Tim, that's great! or in the wonderful world of Onslow, "Oh nice" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onslow_(Keeping_Up_Appearances) > > > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- Joel Goldstick http://joelgoldstick.com
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
