Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 19:49:01 -0800
From: Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: A quirk/gotcha of for i, x in enumerate(seq) when seq is empty
References: <14ba4b39-4066-4d24-89d7-3c7c85aab85c@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> <4f46e329$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4f46e329$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.107.1330059073.3037.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 53
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:20778

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:30:09 -0800, Alex Willmer wrote:
> 
>> This week I was slightly surprised by a behaviour that I've not
>> considered before. I've long used
>>
>> for i, x in enumerate(seq):
>>    # do stuff
>>
>> as a standard looping-with-index construct. In Python for loops don't
>> create a scope, so the loop variables are available afterward. I've
>> sometimes used this to print or return a record count e.g.
>>
>> for i, x in enumerate(seq):
>>    # do stuff
>> print 'Processed %i records' % i+1
>>
>> However as I found out, if seq is empty then i and x are never created.
> 
> This has nothing to do with enumerate. It applies to for loops in 
> general: the loop variable is not initialised if the loop never runs. 
> What value should it take? Zero? Minus one? The empty string? None? 
> Whatever answer Python choose would be almost always wrong, so it refuses 
> to guess.
> 
> 
>> The above code will raise NameError. So if a record count is needed, and
>> the loop is not guaranteed to execute the following seems more correct:
>>
>> i = 0
>> for x in seq:
>>     # do stuff
>>     i += 1
>> print 'Processed %i records' % i
> 
> What fixes the problem is not avoiding enumerate, or performing the 
> increments in slow Python instead of fast C, but that you initialise the 
> loop variable you care about before the loop in case it doesn't run.
> 
> i = 0
> for i,x in enumerate(seq):
>     # do stuff
> 
> is all you need: the addition of one extra line, to initialise the loop 
> variable i (and, if you need it, x) before hand.

Actually,

i = -1

or his reporting will be wrong.

~Ethan~