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
35 matches
Mail list logo