rhamph at gmail.com
Fri Feb 6 22:23:48 CET 2009
On Feb 5, 1:16 pm, Michele Simionato <michele.simion... at gmail.com>
> On Feb 5, 7:24 pm, a... at pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> > In article <a22c77c4-a812-4e42-8972-6f3eedf72... at l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > Michele Simionato <michele.simion... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Looks fine to me. In some situations you may also use hasattr(el,
> > >'__iter__') instead of isinstance(el, list) (it depends if you want to
> > >flatten generic iterables or only lists).
> > Of course, once you do that, you need to special-case strings...
> Strings are iterable but have no __iter__ method, which is fine in
> this context, since I would say 99.9% of times one wants to treat them
> as atomic objects, so no need to special case.
Don't worry, that little oddity was fixed for you:
Python 3.0+ (unknown, Dec 8 2008, 14:26:15)
[GCC 4.3.2] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
<slot wrapper '__iter__' of 'str' objects>
<slot wrapper '__iter__' of 'bytes' objects>
<slot wrapper '__iter__' of 'bytearray' objects>
I'm in the "why do you need more than 1 depth?" camp. Dispatching
based on your own type should be given an extra look. Dispatching
based passed in types should be given three extra looks.
I didn't realize itertools.chain(*iterable) worked. I guess that
needs to be pushed as the canonical form.
More information about the Python-list