*Literal* string concatenation has always been a part of Python :
http://docs.python.org/reference/lexical_analysis.html#string-literal-concatenation
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM, c d saunter <
christopher.saun...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> I did a double take when debugging an error the other d
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Bruno Desthuilliers
wrote:
> guss a écrit :
>
>> I cannot find a satisfying answer to this question on the web so let's
>> try here.
>>
>> My problem is the following, I would like to instantiate some object
>> from a configuration file that would contain class nam
Actually, since you want to keep the missing words apart from the found
ones, it's not necessary to do that. Using "first_char" and "missing_word"
(quoting Peter's code) as lists instead of strings comes to mind, then you
can join both lists into a string once the code exits the for loop.
Cheers,
I don't want to spoil the fun, so I'll just say that "range" is the key
here.
Quentin
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:43 PM, garywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there. So I have a challenge in the Python book I am using (python
> programming for the absolute beginner) that tells me to improve an
I personally don't see any benefit in this approach. By definition,
unittests should be independent, so the order argument suggests a deeper
issue. What's your use case ?
Quentin
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Some time ago I asked whether is would
Hi Steve,
Considering this is a Python list, I doubt you'll get much help for
something related to Netbeans and Ruby.
You're better off asking questions on the proper list :
http://www.netbeans.org/community/lists/
Quentin
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
If the data becomes much bigger, change your way of storing it, not the
code. You don't want to code hundreds of "if - elif - else" because you have
hundreds of different data, right ? TheDailyWTF is full of horror stories
like this, by the way ;-)
Data growth shouldn't result in modification in lo
On Jan 17, 2008 2:38 PM, Sacred Heart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 1:35 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > for i in zip(array1, array2):
> > print i
> >
> > Although I take it you meant four d, the issue with this method is
> > that once you hit the end of one array the rest of the ot
Hi,
I'd consider using zip :
>>> array1 = ['one','two','three','four']
>>> array2 = ['a','b','c','d']
>>> zip(array1, array2)
[('one', 'a'), ('two', 'b'), ('three', 'c'), ('four', 'd')]
>>> for one, two in zip(array1, array2):
... print one, two
...
one a
two b
three c
four d
>>>
HTH,
Quenti
