[Python-ideas] More classical for-loop

Mikhail V mikhailwas at gmail.com
Sat Feb 18 14:35:53 EST 2017

On 18 February 2017 at 05:43, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 06:31:19PM +0100, Mikhail V wrote:
>> I have said I need the index, probably you've misread my last comment.
>> Further more I explained why I think iteration over index should be the
>> preferred way, it help with readability a lot.
> Your concept of readability is clearly radically different from that of
> the majority of the Python community.
>> All my learning years ended up with rewriting most code to "for i in
>> range()"
> How do you cope with generators and iterators that don't have a length?
> How do you cope with iterables which are infinite?
>> and I slap myself when I start to write "for e in L".
>> It is exactly where TOOWTDI applies perfectly and it is integer iteration
>> for me.
> It sounds like Python is not a good match for the way you think. I don't
> say that as a put-down, but perhaps you would be happier if you found
> another language that works the way you would like, instead of trying to
> force Python to be something it isn't?
> --
> Steve

You mean what my proposal would bring
technically better than e.g.:

for i,e in enumerate(Seq)

Well, nothing, and I will simply use it,
with only difference it could be:

for i,e over enumerate(Seq)

In this case only space holes will be
smoothed out, so pure optical fix.

As for my comment about indexing
preference- something inside me would push me to
write something like:

for i index Seq:
   e = Seq[i]

One could call the second line 'noise', but I can't
explain why, it helps me to read, and I am
not biased to C style or anything.
Also it probably has to do with
variables names, and here I see it
on the second line, note that it is not
always 'e' and they often make sense,
e.g. 'files', 'dirs'.


More information about the Python-ideas mailing list