Paul Prescod wrote:
>
> Just van Rossum wrote:
> >
> > for <index> indexing <element> in <seq>:
>
> Let me throw out another idea. What if sequences just had .items()
> methods?
>
> j=range(0,10)
>
> for index, element in j.items():
I like the idea and so I've uploaded a patch for this to SF:
https://sourceforge.net/patch/?func=detailpatch&patch_id=101178&group_id=5470
For ease of reading:
This patch adds a .items() method to the list object.
.items() returns a list with of tuples. E.g.:
for index, value in ["a", "b", "c"].items():
print index, ":", value
will print:
0: a
1: b
2: c
I think this is an easy way to achieve looping over
index AND elements in parallel. Semantically the
following two expressions should be equivalent:
for index, value in zip(range(len(mylist)), mylist):
for index, value in mylist.items():
In opposition to patch #110138 I would call this:
"Adding syntactic sugar without adding syntax (or sugar<wink>):"
this-doesn't-deserve-new-syntax-ly y'rs
Peter
--
Peter Schneider-Kamp ++47-7388-7331
Herman Krags veg 51-11 mailto:peter@schneider-kamp.de
N-7050 Trondheim http://schneider-kamp.de
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4