OK, will do. What would you call it? Something like: "Stateful grouping of iterable items"Michael Spencer wrote:
itertools.groupby enables you to do this, you just need to define a suitable grouping function, that stores its state:
Michael, this would make a great Python Cookbook Recipe.
[Bengt]:
Nice, but I think "record" is a bit opaque semantically. How about group_id or generate_incrementing_unique_id_for_each_group_to_group_by or such?
Regards, Bengt Richter
Agreed, it's an issue. I think the most natural name is groupby - but that would cause more trouble. What do you think about 'grouping' ?
I would use 'generate_incrementing_unique_id_for_each_group_to_group_by', but then people might think I'm trying to outdo Bob Ippolito :-)
[Serge]:
I think your example would be more clear for Jordan if you used function attributes:
def record(item): if len(item) > 20: record.seq +=1 return record.seq record.seq = 0
That does read better than the mutable default argument hack. Is this use of function attributes generally encouraged? (I tend to think of func_dict for meta-data, used only outside the function) Thoughts?
Michael
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
