On Fri, Jul 19, 2002, Fredrik Lundh wrote: > aahz wrote: >>Ping: >>> >>> I believe this is where the biggest debate lies: whether "for" should be >>> non-destructive. I realize we are currently on the other side of the >>> fence, but i foresee enough potential pain that i would like you to >>> consider the value of keeping "for" loops non-destructive. >> >> Consider >> >> for line in f.readlines(): >> >> in any version of Python. > > and? for-in doesn't modify the object returned > by f.readlines(), and never has. While technically true, that seems to be sidestepping the point from my POV. I think that few people see for loops as inherently non-destructive due to the use case I presented above. Beyond that, the for loop is itself inherently mutating in Python older than 2.2, which I see as functionally equivalent to "destructive"; the primary intention of iterators (from my recollections of the tenor of the discussions) was to package that mutating state in a way that could capture the iterability of objects other than sequences. -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Project Vote Smart: http://www.vote-smart.org/
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