On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Mikhail V <mikhail...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 February 2017 at 04:59, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Mikhail V <mikhail...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Common use case: >> > >> > L = [1,3,5,7] >> > >> > for i over len(L): >> > e = L[i] >> > >> > or: >> > >> > length = len(L) >> > for i over length: >> > e = L[i] >> >> Better use case: >> >> for i, e in enumerate(L): >> > > This would be more compact, yet less readable, more error prone variant. > I'd avoid it it all costs and even if I don't need the index further in loop > body, > (which happens rarely in my experience) I write e=L[i] in second line > to make the code more verbose and keep the flow order. > So your variant (and those proposed in PEP-212) could serve in list > comprehensions for example, but for common 'expanded' code I find it > decline of readability, and creating totally different variants for same > iteration idea. > But partially that could be simply matter of habit and love to contractions.
If you don't need the index, why not just iterate over the list directly? for e in L: That's the single most obvious way to step through a collection in Python. What do you need to count up to the length for? ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
