Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2000-August/008495.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: indexing, indices(), irange(), list.items() (was RE: [Python-Dev] Lockstep iteration

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: indexing, indices(), irange(), list.items() (was RE: [Python-Dev] Lockstep iteration - eureka!)
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: indexing, indices(), irange(), list.items()
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Peter Schneider-Kamp writes:
 > What about 'indexing' xor 'in' ? Like that:
 > 
 > for i indexing sequence:      # good
 > for e in sequence:            # good
 > for i indexing e in sequence: # BAD!
 > 
 > This might help Guido to understand what it does in the
 > 'indexing' case. I admit that the third one may be a
 > bit harder to parse, so why not *leave it out*?

  I hadn't considered *not* using an "in" clause, but that is actually
pretty neat.  I'd like to see all of these allowed; disallowing "for i
indexing e in ...:" reduces the intended functionality substantially.


  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fdrake at beopen.com>
BeOpen PythonLabs Team Member

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: indexing, indices(), irange(), list.items() (was RE: [Python-Dev] Lockstep iteration - eureka!)
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: indexing, indices(), irange(), list.items()
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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