On Oct 10, 1:57 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we'll just have to agree to differ in this repsecrt, as I don't
> see your suggestions for extending the sequence API as particularly
> helpful.
No worries. :)
On Oct 10, 11:22 am, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> s
> *) insert martelli essay here.
for example:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-May/163820.html
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Terry Reedy wrote:
> Is there an outer loop being 'break'ed?
yes.
> This break is swallowed by the for loop, so not exactly equivalent, I
> think.
the code is supposed to break out of the outer loop when it runs out of
lines, so yes, monkeeboy's code is broken in more than one way.
> In any
MonkeeSage wrote:
> In Libs/site.py, lines 302-306:
>
> try:
> for i in range(lineno, lineno + self.MAXLINES):
> print self.__lines[i]
> except IndexError:
> break
>
> With my proposal, that could be written as:
>
>
"MonkeeSage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> But even so, here is a simple use case from the standard library
> (python 2.5 release source):
>
> In Libs/site.py, lines 302-306:
>
>try:
>for i in range(lineno, lineno + self.MAXLINES):
>
MonkeeSage wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2:31 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Keep right on guessing.
>
>
> I hope I'm not offending one whom I consider to be much more skilled
> and versed than I am, not only in python, but in programming in
> general; but I must say: it seems you are bein
On Oct 9, 2:31 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keep right on guessing.
I hope I'm not offending one whom I consider to be much more skilled
and versed than I am, not only in python, but in programming in
general; but I must say: it seems you are being rather obtuse here. I
think I l
MonkeeSage wrote:
> On Oct 8, 3:05 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>No: you are proposing to add features to the sequence interface for
>>which there are few demonstrable use cases.
>
>
> If I really wanted to find them, how many instances do you think I
> could find [in the stand
On Oct 8, 3:05 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No: you are proposing to add features to the sequence interface for
> which there are few demonstrable use cases.
If I really wanted to find them, how many instances do you think I
could find [in the standard lib and community-respected
MonkeeSage wrote:
>> but "let's hypergeneralize and treat sequences and mappings as the same
>> thing" proposals are nothing new; a trip to the archives might be help-
>> ful.
>
> Huh? I don't want to treat sequences and mappings as the same thing.
> I'm talking about adding two similar convenien
MonkeeSage wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:44 pm, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>but "let's hypergeneralize and treat sequences and mappings as the same
>>thing" proposals are nothing new; a trip to the archives might be help-
>>ful.
>
>
> Huh? I don't want to treat sequences and mappings as
On Oct 8, 1:44 pm, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but "let's hypergeneralize and treat sequences and mappings as the same
> thing" proposals are nothing new; a trip to the archives might be help-
> ful.
Huh? I don't want to treat sequences and mappings as the same thing.
I'm talking a
MonkeeSage wrote:
> With list.has_index() / get(), the following (pretty common I think)
> idiom:
>
> try:
> data = some_unknown_seq[2]
> except IndexError:
> data = None
> if data: ...
umm. you could at least write:
try:
data = some_unknown_seq[2]
except IndexError:
On Oct 8, 5:57 am, Steven D'Aprano
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, *less* often. That's the point -- it is fairly common for people to
> want dictionary lookup to return a default value, but quite rare for them
> to want sequence lookup to return a default value. A sequence with a
> default value
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:06:47 -0700, MonkeeSage wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:59 pm, Steven D'Aprano
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because they aren't needed often, and when they are, they are easy to
>> implement?
>
> More often and easier to implement than dict.has_key / get?
No, *less* often. That's
On Oct 7, 8:06 pm, "MonkeeSage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More often and easier to implement than dict.has_key / get?
More -> Less
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
MonkeeSage wrote:
>
> On Oct 7, 7:14 pm, Duncan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>No. The above constructs a list of keys and searches the list for the
>>key, O(n). "key in somedict" is a lookup, O(1).
>
>
> My point wasn't in regard to implementation details, but in regard to
> convenienc
On Oct 7, 7:41 pm, Steven D'Aprano
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you just making a philosophical point? In which case I agree: *if* you
> make the analogy "a dictionary key is analogous to a sequence index",
> *then* the operation of "in" isn't semantically analogous between mappings
> and sequ
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:25:15 -0700, MonkeeSage wrote:
> My point wasn't in regard to implementation details, but in regard to
> convenience methods. Obviously the sugary dict methods are tweaked for
> the best performance (one would hope!), as would be sugary sequence
> methods were they to be add
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:26:22 -0700, MonkeeSage wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 7, 3:27 am, Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The meaning comes from the most common usage.
>
> I wasn't suggesting that the "in" keyword have a different sematic for
> sequence types. I was just saying that regard
On Oct 7, 7:14 pm, Duncan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. The above constructs a list of keys and searches the list for the
> key, O(n). "key in somedict" is a lookup, O(1).
My point wasn't in regard to implementation details, but in regard to
convenience methods. Obviously the sugary d
MonkeeSage wrote:
> On Oct 7, 12:37 pm, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>for what?
>
>
> key in self.keys()
>
[snip]
No. The above constructs a list of keys and searches the list for the
key, O(n). "key in somedict" is a lookup, O(1).
Duncan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman
On Oct 7, 12:37 pm, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> for what?
key in self.keys()
And d.get() looks like sugar for:
if self.has_key(key):
return self[key]
else:
return default_value
Why not have the same sugar for sequence types? E.g.,
def has_index(self, index):
MonkeeSage wrote:
> True. But valid dictionary keys are exactly d.keys(). The has_key
> method is just sugar.
for what? are you sure you're using "sugar" as it is usually used when
talking about computer languages?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Oct 7, 3:27 am, Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The meaning comes from the most common usage.
I wasn't suggesting that the "in" keyword have a different sematic for
sequence types. I was just saying that regarding the question whether
there is anything similar to "dict.has_key
At Saturday 7/10/2006 02:15, MonkeeSage wrote:
On Oct 6, 8:23 pm, Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if 2 in [1,2,3]: print "Use the same (in) operator"
> elif 'E' in ('E','r','i','k'): print "Works for any sequence"
> elif 'o' in 'hello': print "Even strings"
This isn't really anal
On Oct 6, 8:23 pm, Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if 2 in [1,2,3]: print "Use the same (in) operator"
> elif 'E' in ('E','r','i','k'): print "Works for any sequence"
> elif 'o' in 'hello': print "Even strings"
This isn't really analogous is it? For "somedict.has_key(k)" or "k in
On 6 Oct 2006 16:57:23 -0700, erikcw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I ended up using len(sys.argv) > 1 for this particular problem. But I
> think slicing is closer to the tool I was looking for.
>
> I found a.has_key(k) or "k in a" for dictionaries - but haven't found
> anything similar for lists.
At Friday 6/10/2006 20:57, erikcw wrote:
I ended up using len(sys.argv) > 1 for this particular problem. But I
think slicing is closer to the tool I was looking for.
I found a.has_key(k) or "k in a" for dictionaries - but haven't found
anything similar for lists. Does it exist?
if 2 in [1,2
I ended up using len(sys.argv) > 1 for this particular problem. But I
think slicing is closer to the tool I was looking for.
I found a.has_key(k) or "k in a" for dictionaries - but haven't found
anything similar for lists. Does it exist?
I guess my example from php would technically be a dictio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm sorry about the newbie question, but I've been searching all
> afternoon and can't find the answer!
>
> I'm trying to get this bit of code to work without triggering the
> IndexError.
>
> import shutil, os, sys
>
> if sys.argv[1] != None:
> ver = s
Terry Reedy wrote bloated code:
> if sys.argv[1:2] != []:
if sys.argv[1:2]:
:-)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
"Leif K-Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I'm trying to get this bit of code to work without triggering the
>> IndexError.
>>
>> import shutil, os, sys
>>
>> if sys.argv[1] != None:
>> ver = sys.argv[1]
>> else:
>> ver = '2.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm trying to get this bit of code to work without triggering the
> IndexError.
>
> import shutil, os, sys
>
> if sys.argv[1] != None:
> ver = sys.argv[1]
> else:
> ver = '2.14'
Something like::
if len(sys.argv) > 1:
ver = sys.argv[1]
else:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm trying to get this bit of code to work without triggering the
> IndexError.
>
> import shutil, os, sys
>
> if sys.argv[1] != None:
> ver = sys.argv[1]
> else:
> ver = '2.14'
Catch it:
try:
ver = sys.argv[1]
except IndexError:
ver = '2.14'
--
htt
Hi all,
I'm sorry about the newbie question, but I've been searching all
afternoon and can't find the answer!
I'm trying to get this bit of code to work without triggering the
IndexError.
import shutil, os, sys
if sys.argv[1] != None:
ver = sys.argv[1]
else:
ver = '2.14'
Of course, whe
36 matches
Mail list logo
