On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 10:27:24AM -0400, Bill Mill wrote: > On 7/21/05, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:30:10 -0400, Bill Mill wrote: > > > > > On 7/20/05, Simon Brunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> On 7/20/05, Mage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > Or is there better way? > > >> > > > >> > for (i, url) in [(i,links[i]) for i in range(len(links))]: > > >> > > >> for i, url in enumerate(links): > > >> > > > > > > +2 for creating seeing a need and crafting a reasonable solution, but > > > -1 for not reading the section on builtins to see if it existed > > > already. > > > > To see if *what* existed already? > > > > It is well and good to say RTFM, but there are 697 subsections to the > > Python Library reference, and if you don't know what you are looking for, > > and beginners rarely are, it isn't obvious which is the right section to > > read. And the Library Reference isn't even "the" manual: there is also the > > global module reference and language reference. > > > > If you already know what you are looking for, reading the manual is great > > advice. Browsing the manual looking for interesting tidbits can even be > > fun for a certain mindset. But if you don't know enough to know what to > > look for, where in the 2000-odd sections of the Python references will > > you find it? > > > > I said the *builtins* section. I think you learn pretty quick that > figuring out what functions are builtins is pretty important in every > language. There's a fair number of people out there giving the advice > to read chapter 2 of the library reference cover-to-cover for a good > starter on python. The quick reference guide is also a nice place to find all the most important information: http://rgruet.free.fr/PQR24/PQR2.4.html > > Furthermore, I wasn't being hard on the guy, he still added up to +1. > Lighten up, I was joking. > > > > > > > > (As for its pythonicity, I would have recommended isolating it into a > > > function and making it a generator: > > > > It is easy to take this to extremes. It isn't necessary to isolate > > everything into its own object, or class, or module. Too much > > encapsulation is just as bad as too little. > > > > agreed; his listcomp just looks awkward inside the for loop statement; > if it were my code, I would put it into a function. He asked if his > code was pythonic, and I think the (non-extreme) pythonic thing to do > would be to put his listcomp into a function. > > > > > > def my_enumerate(enumerable): > > > i = 0 > > > for elt in enumerable: > > > yield (i, elt) > > > i += 1 > > > > > > for i, url in my_enumerate(links): > > > > > > but it's not too bad as it is. Also, my function is completely > > > untested - it's close to right though.) > > > > What is the advantage of your function my_enumerate over the Python > > built-in enumerate? > > > > > > absolutely none; I just was saying how I would encapsulate it into a function.
Except that enumerate was introduced in 2.3 so if you are working with an older version of Python it won't be there. > > Peace > Bill Mill > bill.mill at gmail.com > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
