Nick Coghlan added the comment:
(Updated the issue title to reflect the currently proposed name and location
for the functionality)
While I'm a fan of explicit iteration as well ("inside every reduce is a loop
trying to get out"), I think the fact Martin's explicit loop is buggy (it will
never match re2 as it always bails on the first iteration) helps make the case
for coalesce. The correct explicit loop looks something like this:
for r in (re1, re2):
m = r.match('abc')
if m is None:
continue
if r is re1:
print('re1', m.group(1))
elif r is re2:
print('re1', m.group(1))
break # Matched something
else:
print('No match')
(Or the equivalent that indents the loop body further and avoids the continue
statement)
The coalesce version has a definite advantage in not needing a loop else clause
to handle the "nothing matched" case:
m = coalesce(regexp.match('abc') for regexp in [re1, re2])
if m is None:
print('no match!')
elif m.re is re1:
print('re1', m.group(1))
elif m.re is re2:
print('re2', m.group(1))
----------
title: Add a “first”-like function to the stdlib -> Add itertools.coalesce
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue18652>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
