> > def tee(iterable):
> > "Return two independent iterators from a single iterable"
> > data = {}
> > cnt = 0
> > def gen(next):
> > global* cnt
> > dpop = data.pop
> > for i in count():
> > if i == cnt:
> > item = data[i] = next()
> > cnt += 1
> > else:
> > item = dpop(i)
> > yield item
> > next = iter(iterable).next
> > return (gen(next), gen(next))
> >
> >which is IMO more readable.
>
> it's a subtle piece of code. I wouldn't mind a more structured syntax with
> both the outer function declaring that is ok for some inner function to
> rebind some of its locals, and the inner function declaring that a local is
> coming from an outer scope:
>
> def tee(iterable):
> "Return two independent iterators from a single iterable"
> data = {}
>
> # cnt = 0 here would be ok
>
> share cnt = 0: # the assignment is opt,
> # inner functions in the suite can rebind cnt
> def gen(next):
> use cnt # OR outer cnt
> dpop = data.pop
> for i in count():
> if i == cnt:
> item = data[i] = next()
> cnt += 1
> else:
> item = dpop(i)
> yield item
>
> # cnt = 0 here would be ok
>
> next = iter(iterable).next
> return (gen(next), gen(next))
>
> yes it's heavy and unpythonic, but it makes very clear that something
> special is going on with cnt.
Might as well declare a class then. :-)
> no time to add anything else to the thread.
Ditto.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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