Jim Segrave wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >What I ran was more like the version below, but i did a quick > >separation of the line that has the ';' in it and goofed. > > > >>>> def interv2(inlist): > >... for i,val in enumerate(inlist): > >... if i==0: > >... tmp = val > >... elif val != valinc: > >... yield [tmp, valinc]; tmp = val > >... valinc = val+1 > >... yield [tmp, valinc] > >... > >>>> list(interv2(inlist)) > >[[3, 4], [6, 9], [12, 14], [15, 16]] > > Fails on an empty list, as tmp is not defined when it hits the yield > > > -- > Jim Segrave ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Yep, I still, purposfully, decided not to put any guard checks in because: Its very easy to add. It detracts from the algorithm. It might never be called with an empty list in-situ. It is correct for the original posters testcases. Yah gotta leave-em something to do ;-) But you-too are right. Don't just cut-n-paste newsgroup solutions. they need testing for your particular use. I doubt anyone on C.L.P. would be malicious, but your actual use of a function having a wider scope to inputs than mentioned might be fairy common. (Damn, I wanted to use 'caveat emptor', but it does not apply as nothing is being bought. Oh well :-) -- Pad. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
