Scott David Daniels wrote:
John Posner wrote:
Shane Geiger wrote:
if type(el) == list or type(el) is tuple:
A tiny improvement:
if type(el) in (list, tuple):
or (even better)
if isinstance(el, (list, tuple))
However, it is my contention that you shouldn't be flattening by type --
you should know where, explicitly to flatten. If I have 3-D points as
triples, a tree of points would, by this code, get flattened into a
a list of numbers. If, however, I create a class with the same
elements, but a method or two, suddenly flatten will produce a list
of points. It is my contention that the tree abstraction should be
responsible for producing its leaves, rather than a blunderbus that
doesn't know where one container abstraction ends, and its contents
begin. In other words, I'd like to see thigs like "flatten one layer."
Maybe that is why some modules like PIL or pygame accepts list of
coordinates in flattened list of number instead of nested (i.e. they
accepts [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] and do the grouping
themself).
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
