Steve R. Hastings wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:29:00 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> I think "S and all(S)" is the right way to express that, if that's
>> what's intended.
>
> I still would like a standard function, because "S and all(S)" does not
> work with iterators. I proposed one possible function, truecount(S), that
> returns a tuple of how many were true and how many there were total. Then
> you could do
>
> true_count, count = truecount(S)
>
> if count and true_count == count:
> # nonempty list and all are true
>
>
> And S could be an iterator or generator function expression.
>
> You can easily write your own truecount() but it would be nice to have
> something like that as standard. I don't much like the name "truecount"
> though; I'm open to suggestions for a better name.
How about:
countall(S, value=True)
Considering len() is used to get a length, and countall() is related to
all(), but it's explicit about what it's counting and would not return
True on an empty set. I think it would be useful.
true_count, count = countall(S), len(S)
Cheers,
Ron
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
