Tim Peters wrote:
>
> Note that Guido rejected all the loop-gimmick proposals ("indexing",
> indices(), irange(), and list.items()) on Thursday, so let's stifle this
> debate until after 2.0 (or, even better, until after I'm dead <wink>).
That's sad. :-/
One of the reasons I implemented .items() is that I wanted
to increase the probability that at least *something* is
available instead of:
for i in range(len(list):
e = list[i]
...
or
for i, e in zip(range(len(list)), list):
...
I'm going to teach Python to a lot of newbies (ca. 30) in
October. From my experience (I already tried my luck on two
individuals from that group) 'range(len(list))' is one
of the harder concepts to get across. Even indices(list)
would help here.
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