On 16/11/2007, <b class="gmail_sendername">Benji York</b> <<a href="mailto:benji@benjiyork.com">benji@benjiyork.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Gustavo Carneiro wrote:<br> > I am finding myself often doing for loops over a subset of a list, like:<br> ><br> > for r in results:<br> > if r.numNodes != numNodes:<br> > continue
<br> > # do something with r<br> ><br> > It would be nice if the plain for loop was as flexible as list<br>comprehensions<br> > and allowed an optional if clause, like this:<br> ><br> > for r in results if
r.numNodes == numNodes:<br> > # do something with r<br><br>You can do the same today, sans sugar:<br><br> for r in (s for s in results if s.numNodes == numNodes):<br> # do something with r</blockquote>
<div><br>Yes, I can do that, as well as I can use the 'continue' statement, but both versions are slightly more verbose and less clear than what I propose.<br></div></div><br>-- <br>Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro<br>INESC Porto, Telecommunications and Multimedia Unit
<br>"The universe is always one step beyond logic." -- Frank Herbert