On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:04 AM, giacomo boffi wrote:
> Tim Chase writes:
>
>> On 2014-10-12 22:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> is equivalent with
>>>
>>> while ans.lower()[0] != 'y':
>>> ans = input('Do you like python?')
>>
>> And still better improved with
>>
>> while ans[:1].low
Tim Chase writes:
> On 2014-10-12 22:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> is equivalent with
>>
>> while ans.lower()[0] != 'y':
>> ans = input('Do you like python?')
>
> And still better improved with
>
> while ans[:1].lower() != 'y':
> ans = input('Do you like python?')
yok is Turk
On 10/13/2014 11:12 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Monday, October 13, 2014 10:13:20 PM UTC+5:30, Rob Gaddi wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
>> Rustom Mody wrote:
>
>>> On Monday, October 13, 2014 9:43:03 PM UTC+5:30, Rob Gaddi wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:56:02 +1100
St
On Monday, October 13, 2014 10:13:20 PM UTC+5:30, Rob Gaddi wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
> Rustom Mody wrote:
> > On Monday, October 13, 2014 9:43:03 PM UTC+5:30, Rob Gaddi wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:56:02 +1100
> > > Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > > > When you have mul
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Monday, October 13, 2014 9:43:03 PM UTC+5:30, Rob Gaddi wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:56:02 +1100
> > Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > > When you have multiple clauses in the condition, it's easier to reason
> > > about
> > > them i
On Monday, October 13, 2014 9:43:03 PM UTC+5:30, Rob Gaddi wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:56:02 +1100
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > When you have multiple clauses in the condition, it's easier to reason about
> > them if you write the clauses as positive statements rather than negative
> > stateme
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:56:02 +1100
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> When you have multiple clauses in the condition, it's easier to reason about
> them if you write the clauses as positive statements rather than negative
> statements, that is, "something is true" rather than "something is not
> true",
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> Or, even simpler: Use an active condition.
>>
>> while input('Do you like python?') not in ('yes', 'y'): pass
>
> Instead of the traditional "pull" technology, you could take advantage
> of the state-of-the-art "push"
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Skip Montanaro
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> while input('Do you like python?') not in ('yes', 'y'): pass
>
>
> Unfortunately, you probably have to account for people who SHOUT:
>
> while input('Do you like python?').lo
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> while input('Do you like python?') not in ('yes', 'y'): pass
Unfortunately, you probably have to account for people who SHOUT:
while input('Do you like python?').lower() not in ('yes', 'y'): pass
Skip
--
https://mail.python.org/m
Chris Angelico :
> Or, even simpler: Use an active condition.
>
> while input('Do you like python?') not in ('yes', 'y'): pass
Instead of the traditional "pull" technology, you could take advantage
of the state-of-the-art "push" approach:
print("You must love python -- everybody does!")
Mar
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Gelonida N wrote:
> Taking into account the Steven's suggestion about using the 'in' expression
> it could be:
>
>
> while True:
> ans = input('Do you like python?')
> if ans.lower() in ('yes', 'y'):
> break
Or, even simpler: Use an active conditio
On 10/12/2014 07:08 PM, Shiva wrote:
while ans.lower() != 'yes' or ans.lower()[0] != 'y':
ans = input('Do you like python?')
I personally consider double negations less intuitive than following:
while not( ans.lower() == 'yes' and ans.lower()[0] == 'y' ):
Reading this line yoy would ha
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber
wrote:
> ONE: Python uses short circuit evaluation: for an OR, the second
> clause
> is only looked at if the first clause is FALSE (for an AND, the first
> clause has to be TRUE before the second is evaluated).
Short-circuiting doesn't
Tim Chase wrote:
> On 2014-10-12 22:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> is equivalent with
>>
>> while ans.lower()[0] != 'y':
>> ans = input('Do you like python?')
>
> And still better improved with
>
> while ans[:1].lower() != 'y':
> ans = input('Do you like python?')
The intenti
On 2014-10-12 22:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> is equivalent with
>
> while ans.lower()[0] != 'y':
> ans = input('Do you like python?')
And still better improved with
while ans[:1].lower() != 'y':
ans = input('Do you like python?')
in the event that len(ans)==0 (a situation whi
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 17:08:00 +, Shiva wrote:
> while ans.lower() != 'yes' or ans.lower()[0] != 'y':
while ans.lower() is not equal to "yes"
or ans.lower()[0] is not equal to "y"
the loop will continue to run
Note that if ans.lower() == 'y', then the first clause ( ans.lower() !=
'yes' )
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> The corrected version
>
> while ans.lower() != 'yes' and ans.lower()[0] != 'y':
> ans = input('Do you like python?')
>
> is equivalent with
>
> while ans.lower()[0] != 'y':
It's true that the first part is redundant, but tr
Chris Angelico :
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Shiva
> wrote:
>> Bit confusing to use in While loop - Should have used the 'and' condition
>> instead of OR- then it works fine.
>> for OR both condition need to be false to produce a false output and break
>> the loop.
>
> Correct, what you're
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Shiva
wrote:
> Bit confusing to use in While loop - Should have used the 'and' condition
> instead of OR- then it works fine.
> for OR both condition need to be false to produce a false output and break
> the loop.
Correct, what you're looking for here is indeed a
Bit confusing to use in While loop - Should have used the 'and' condition
instead of OR- then it works fine.
for OR both condition need to be false to produce a false output and break
the loop.
More of SET operations.
Thanks,
Shiva
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Shiva
wrote:
>> The loop will continue while either part is true - that's what "or"
>> means. Is that what you intended it to be doing?
>>
>> ChrisA
>>
>
>
> Yes..however, the second part of the or condition doesn't get evaluated.
> So if I enter a 'y' - I expe
In article ,
Shiva wrote:
> Why is the second part of while condition not being checked?
>
> while ans.lower() != 'yes' or ans.lower()[0] != 'y':
> ans = input('Do you like python?')
>
>
> My intention is if either of the conditions are true the loop should break.
> But the condition aft
> The loop will continue while either part is true - that's what "or"
> means. Is that what you intended it to be doing?
>
> ChrisA
>
Yes..however, the second part of the or condition doesn't get evaluated.
So if I enter a 'y' - I expect the second part to evaluate and the loop to
break -
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Shiva
wrote:
> Why is the second part of while condition not being checked?
>
> while ans.lower() != 'yes' or ans.lower()[0] != 'y':
> ans = input('Do you like python?')
>
>
> My intention is if either of the conditions are true the loop should break.
> But th
Why is the second part of while condition not being checked?
while ans.lower() != 'yes' or ans.lower()[0] != 'y':
ans = input('Do you like python?')
My intention is if either of the conditions are true the loop should break.
But the condition after 'or' doesn't seem to evaluate.
Thanks,
Sh
26 matches
Mail list logo
