"Peter Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Do you think this discussion is a proof that the following principle >> got violated, or do you think that "loop with condition" is not such an >> atomic thing to be subject to this: "There should be one -- and >> preferably only one -- obvious way to do it." > > Mitja's suggestion was the one obvious way. The others are all > interesting, maybe even preferable in some cases, but I don't think most > experienced Python programmers would be more likely to start with one of > them than with the simple for-loop-with-explicit-test.
If by 'explicit-test' you mean a nested if-statement, then I agree. When I mentioned filter() as one way to avoid the obvious, I was aware that it creates an intermediate list that is usually not needed. (And if it is needed, then it should be name-assigned before the loop.) Terry Jan Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
