On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:39:25 +0200, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote: > I have seen code that just created a list comprehension to iterate over > something but was discarding the results. That could be a case for a "do > nothing" function.
That would be a case for *not* using a list comprehension. Using a list comp when you don't want the results is the wrong way to do it. That's like hammering a screw into a wall with a wrench. Okay, I admit it, sometimes if I'm lazy and I'm in the interactive interpreter and I need to consume use up results from an iterator, I type: _ = [x for x in iterator] and then I kick myself because I could have just written: _ = list(iterator) but in actual code, I'm not so lazy to bang that screw into the wall using a wrench. I at least reach for a hammer: _ = [None for x in iterator] or better still, a drill: collections.deque(iterator, maxlen=0) But fine, you need a do-nothing function. Here you go: _ = [(lambda x: None)(x) for x in sequence] > Just having a function that does nothing would be useful in other > places, too. In some cases, you want to print() some debug output in > other cases you just use pass() to discard the debug output. You're still not giving reasons why *pass* should be a do-nothing function. Of course there are good use-cases for do-nothing functions, that goes without saying. But you have to explain why: 1) that do-nothing function is so common and so important that it has to be a built-in function; and 2) why it needs to be called "pass". Nobody is disputing the usefulness of do nothing functions. We're disputing that *pass* should be that function. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
