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
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
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
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
*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
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
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
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,
