Le Mercredi 21 Juin 2006 14:01, Fredrik Lundh a écrit :
> > Another variant, I feel this one more natural as it doesn't contain a
> > C-looking infinite loop
>
> doing things in a convoluted way because you think that non-infinite while-
> loops are not natural? you can get help for that, you know ;-)
Hehe, I was looking for a more pythonic solution (one like Tim gave), but not
convinced.
Sure these loops are common and natural. They're so natural I wonder why I
avoid this kind of code :
for i in lst :
...
if continue_condition : continue
...
if break_condition : break
...
Maybe I'll vote for a goto statment for Python3000...
Really I prefer code like this, when it's possible :
for i in [ e for e in lst[:first_breaking_elt] if not e in
continue_condition ] :
....
> and a potentially large number of new strings. there's a lot of string
> copying going on in there...
Oh, yes, you're right, a xsplit operator would be of minor help as it will
copy all the string piece by piece.
Le Mercredi 21 Juin 2006 14:27, K.S.Sreeram a écrit :
> > Actually it's even more efficient than Lundh's
>
> effbot's solution finds overlapping occurrences, whereas your solution
> finds non-overlapping occurrences.
Missed that.
> So efficiency comparisons are not valid.
Right, but anyway, the problem is more about memory usage.
Regards,
--
_____________
Maric Michaud
_____________
Aristote - www.aristote.info
3 place des tapis
69004 Lyon
Tel: +33 426 880 097
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
