[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>
>>Roel Schroeven a ecrit :
>>
>>>Bruno Desthuilliers schreef:
>>>
>>>
stdazi a ecrit :
>>>
>>>
>for (i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++)
> i = 10;
for i in range(10):
i = 10
What's your point, exactly ?
>>>
>>
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Roel Schroeven a ecrit :
> > Bruno Desthuilliers schreef:
> >
> >> stdazi a ecrit :
> >
> >
> >>> for (i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++)
> >>>i = 10;
> >>
> >>
> >> for i in range(10):
> >>i = 10
> >>
> >> What's your point, exactly ?
> >
> >
> > In the first iteration, i i
Roel Schroeven a écrit :
> Bruno Desthuilliers schreef:
>
>> stdazi a écrit :
>
>
>>> for (i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++)
>>>i = 10;
>>
>>
>> for i in range(10):
>>i = 10
>>
>> What's your point, exactly ?
>
>
> In the first iteration, i is set equal to 10. Then, before starting the
> second i
Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sat, 17 Feb 2007
01:31:13 GMT didst step forth and proclaim thus:
...
> So, the point is that in C you can influence the loop's behavior by
> modifying the loop variable, while you cannot do that in Python (at
> least not in a for-loop).
What's wrong with...
Bruno Desthuilliers schreef:
> stdazi a écrit :
>> for (i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++)
>>i = 10;
>
> for i in range(10):
>i = 10
>
> What's your point, exactly ?
In the first iteration, i is set equal to 10. Then, before starting the
second iteration, i is incremented to 11; then the loop condi
stdazi a écrit :
> Hello!
>
> Many times I was suggested to use xrange and range instead of the
> while constructs, and indeed, they are quite more elegant - but, after
> calculating the overhead (and losen flexibility) when working with
> range/xrange, and while loops, you get to the conclusion t
Eduardo "EdCrypt" O. Padoan wrote:
>> But this long int => int issue should not exist in a future
>> python version any more, IIRC int and long int is scheduled to be
>> merged somehow. (Or isn't it?)
>
> It is done.
Thanks for the info.
Please don't send mail copies!
Regards,
Björn
--
BOF
On Feb 16, 7:01 am, "Bart Ogryczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 4:30 pm, "stdazi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > for (i = 0; some_function() /* or other condition */ ; i++)
>
> C's "for(pre,cond,post) code" is nothing more, then shorthand form of
> "pre; while(cond) {code; post;}"
I
On 2007-02-16, Bart Ogryczak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 4:30 pm, "stdazi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> for (i = 0; some_function() /* or other condition */ ; i++)
>
> C's "for(pre,cond,post) code" is nothing more, then shorthand form of
> "pre; while(cond) {code; post;}"
> Which tra
> But this long int => int issue should not exist in a future python
> version any more, IIRC int and long int is scheduled to be merged
> somehow. (Or isn't it?)
It is done.
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000-checkins/2007-January/000251.html
--
EduardoOPadoan (eopadoan->altavix::com
stdazi wrote:
> Many times I was suggested to use xrange and range instead of the
> while constructs, and indeed, they are quite more elegant - but,
> after calculating the overhead (and losen flexibility) when
> working with range/xrange, and while loops, you get to the
> conclusion that it isn't
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steven
D'Aprano wrote:
>> for (i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++)
>>i = 10;
>
>
> This would be written in Python as:
>
> for i in xrange(10):
> i = 10
Nope, in Python it's:
for i in xrange(10):
break
I think his example should demonstrate that assigning to the loop va
On Feb 16, 4:30 pm, "stdazi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> for (i = 0; some_function() /* or other condition */ ; i++)
C's "for(pre,cond,post) code" is nothing more, then shorthand form of
"pre; while(cond) {code; post;}"
Which translated to Python would be:
pre
while cond:
code
post
--
h
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:30:15 -0800, stdazi wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Many times I was suggested to use xrange and range instead of the
> while constructs, and indeed, they are quite more elegant - but, after
> calculating the overhead (and losen flexibility) when working with
> range/xrange, and while
stdazi wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Many times I was suggested to use xrange and range instead of the
> while constructs, and indeed, they are quite more elegant - but, after
> calculating the overhead (and losen flexibility) when working with
> range/xrange, and while loops, you get to the conclusion that
On Feb 16, 9:30 am, "stdazi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Many times I was suggested to use xrange and range instead of the
> while constructs, and indeed, they are quite more elegant - but, after
> calculating the overhead (and losen flexibility) when working with
> range/xrange, and wh
On 16 Feb 2007 07:30:15 -0800, stdazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Many times I was suggested to use xrange and range instead of the
> while constructs, and indeed, they are quite more elegant - but, after
> calculating the overhead (and losen flexibility) when working with
> range/xrang
Hello!
Many times I was suggested to use xrange and range instead of the
while constructs, and indeed, they are quite more elegant - but, after
calculating the overhead (and losen flexibility) when working with
range/xrange, and while loops, you get to the conclusion that it isn't
really worth usi
18 matches
Mail list logo
