How [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ruby has a neat little convenience when writing loops where you don't > care about the loop index: you just do n.times do { ... some > code ... } where n is an integer representing how many times you want > to execute "some code." > > In Python, the direct translation of this is a for loop. When the > index doesn't matter to me, I tend to write it as: > > for _ in xrange (1,n): > some code > > An alternative way of indicating that you don't care about the loop > index would be > > for dummy in xrange (1,n): > some code > > But I like using _ because it's only 1 character and communicates well > the idea "I don't care about this variable." > > The only potential disadvantages I can see are threefold: > > 1. It might be a little jarring to people not used to it. I do admit > it looks pretty strange at first. > > 2. The variable _ has special meaning at the interactive interpreter > prompt. There may be some confusion because of this. > > 5. Five is right out. (ob Holy Grail reference, of course. :-) > > So, I guess I'm wondering if anyone else uses a similar idiom and if > there are any downsides to it that I'm not aw
Would something like this be acceptable? It still requires a loop variable, plus an extra line of code per loop, plus a one-time class definition (and import into each client module), and it's probably slower than "for dummy in range." The syntax might be more inuitive than "dummy" or "_" in a for loop, though. class Go: def __init__(self, count): self.count = count def again(self): if self.count <= 0: return False self.count -= 1 return True go = Go(3) while go.again(): print "hello" -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list