You can always use a counter if you don't like our fancy for-each loops; foolist = [1,24,24,234,23,423,4] for i in xrange(len(foolist)): print foolist[i]
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Tim Chase <python.l...@tim.thechases.com>wrote: > On 09/23/12 17:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:45:53 -0700, jimbo1qaz wrote: > >> On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:36:19 AM UTC-7, jimbo1qaz wrote: > >>> Am I missing something obvious, or do I have to manually put in a > >>> counter in the for loops? That's a very basic request, but I couldn't > >>> find anything in the documentation. > >> > >> Ya, they should really give a better way, but for now, enumerate works > >> pretty well. > > > > Define "a better way". What did you have in mind that would work better? > > I can only imagine jimbo1qaz intended "a more C-like way". blech. > > I **far** prefer The Python Way™. The vast majority of the time, > I'm looping over some iterable where indices would only get in the > way of readability. Tuple-unpacking the results of enumerate() is > an elegant way of getting both the items+indices on the seldom > occasion I need the index too (though I'm minorly miffed that > enumerate()'s starting-offset wasn't back-ported into earlier 2.x > versions and have had to code around it for 1-based indexing; either > extra "+1"s or whip up my own simple enumerate() generator). > > -tkc > > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list