Neil Schemenauer wrote: > > Ka-Ping Yee wrote: > > I think "for" should be non-destructive because that's the way > > it has almost always behaved, and that's the way it behaves in > > any other language [@] i can think of. > > I agree that it can be surprising to have "for" destory the object it's > looping over. I myself was bitten once by it. I'm not yet sure if this > is something that will repeatedly bite. I suspect it might. :-( In what context? Were you iterating over a file or something else? I'm wondering if this is a problem, perhaps pychecker could generate a warning? Neal
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