quinn at hork.ugcs.caltech.edu
Fri Jan 25 17:21:46 EST 2002
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:21:14 +0100, Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> wrote:
>"Michael Chermside" <mcherm at destiny.com> wrote in message
>news:mailman.1011968940.24241.python-list at python.org...
>> * The following approach is simpler and cleaner _IF_ the reader is
>> familiar with the convention:
>> # Approach 3:
>> for i, item in indexed(list):
>> <code with i and item>
>> So... anyone else agree?
>Yes. See also:
>where I offer two implementations of indexed (spelled Indexed)
>for Python 2.1 (with 'list' having to be a sequence, of course,
>since iterators were not around yet):
> def __init__(self, seq):
> self.seq = seq
> def __getitem__(self, i):
> return self.seq[i], i
Also note that mxTools has indices(x) which is like tuple(range(len(x)) and
irange(x) which is like tuple(zip(indices(x), x)). Of course now that we have
generators they could use those, but I like the mxTools functions and think
they'd be just fine except for huge sequences in low memory situations.
There's lots of useful general-purpsoe utilities in mxTools. Things like
NotGiven are handy for:
if x is NotGiven: # None is a valid value
Not that votes count for much, but if people want Indexed functionality in the
core, I vote for the mxTools functions over the 'indexed' keyword.
More information about the Python-list