On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 11:47 pm, Jorgen Grahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2008 06:54:29 GMT, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:02:44 +, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>
>> >>
On Mar 31, 11:47 pm, Jorgen Grahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2008 06:54:29 GMT, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:02:44 +, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>
> >> I realize this has to do with the extra read-ahead buffering documented for
> >
On 31 Mar 2008 06:54:29 GMT, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:02:44 +, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>
>> I realize this has to do with the extra read-ahead buffering documented for
>> file.next() and that I can work around it by using file.readline()
>> instea
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:02:44 +, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> I realize this has to do with the extra read-ahead buffering documented for
> file.next() and that I can work around it by using file.readline()
> instead.
>
> The problem is, "for s in f" is the elegant way of reading files line
> by line
One thing that has annoyed me for quite some time. I apologize if it
has been discussed recently. If I run this program on Unix (Python
2.4.4, on Debian Linux)
import sys
for s in sys.stdin:
print '', s ,
and type the input on the keyboard rather than piping a file into it,
t
