On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 11:26:08 PM UTC+2, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:30 AM, Rob Gaddi > <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> wrote: > > beliav...@aol.com wrote: > > > >> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 7:24:10 PM UTC-4, Erik wrote: > >>> > >>> Or, if you want to "import operator" first, you can use 'operator.add' > >>> instead of the lambda (but you _did_ ask for a one-liner ;)). > >>> > >>> Out of interest, why the fascination with one-liners? > >> > >> Thanks for your reply. Sometimes when I program in Python I think I am not > >> using the full capabilities of the language, so I want to know if there are > >> more concise ways of doing things. > > > > Concise is only worth so much. PEP20 tells us "Explicit is better than > > implicit", "Simple is better than complex" and "If the implementation is > > hard to explain, it's a bad idea". > > > > Python is a beautifully expressive language. Your goal should not be to > > write the minimum number of lines of code to accomplish the task. > > Your goal should be to write the code such that your grandmother can > > understand it. That way, when you screw it up, you'll be able to easily > > figure out where and how you did so. Or failing that, you can get > > grangran to show you. > > Just out of interest, did you (generic you) happen to notice Mark's > suggestion? It's a one-liner that nicely expresses the intention and > accomplishes the goal: > > yy = [aa for aa in xx for _ in range(nrep)] > > It quietly went through without fanfare, but I would say this is the > perfect solution to the original problem. > > ChrisA
Of course that's definitely the most pythonic sol to this prob :)! Just wanted to point out the use of the operator "*" in lists. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
