RetroSearch Browse

Sat Sep 3 13:31:26 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/056093.html

Martin Blais wrote:
> On 9/2/05, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> 
>>At 11:02 AM 9/3/2005 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>>>Printing the items in a sequence also becomes straightforward:
>>>
>>>print " ".join(map(str, range(10))) => output(*range(10))
>>>
>>>Playing well with generator expressions comes for free, too:
>>>
>>>print " ".join(str(x*x) for x in range(10))
>>>     => output(*(x*x for x in range(10)))
>>
>>An implementation issue: that generator expression will get expanded into a
>>tuple, so you shouldn't use that for outputting large sequences.
> 
> 
> Then how about::
> 
>   output(*(x*x for x in range(10)), iter=1)
> 
Illegal in python2.4.(Wrongly ?) And makes the star solution half unuseful.

>>> def f(*args,**kwargs):
...   pass
...
>>> f(*(1,2,3),iter=True)
   File "<stdin>", line 1
     f(*(1,2,3),iter=True)

Leaving out what I just asserted in the previous thread :( I suppose you
meant output((x*x for x in range(10)), iter=1)

f(1,[2,3],(_ for _ in (4,5)),iter=True)


Regards Paolino

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/056093.html below:

[Python-Dev] Replacement for print in Python 3.0