Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!cs.uu.nl!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
To: python-list@python.org
From: Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de>
Subject: Re: A quirk/gotcha of for i, x in enumerate(seq) when seq is empty
Followup-To: gmane.comp.python.general
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:44:05 +0100
Organization: None
References: <14ba4b39-4066-4d24-89d7-3c7c85aab85c@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> <4f46e329$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <4F4708AD.1020805@stoneleaf.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.115.1330073018.3037.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 68
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:20791

Ethan Furman wrote:

> 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.

Yes, either

i = -1
for i, x in enumerate(seq):
    ...
print "%d records" % (i+1)

or

i = 0
for i, x in enumerate(seq, 1):
    ...
print "%d records" % i