Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:42:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.4983.1327351819.27778.python-list@python.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=112.104.167.201; posting-account=5JdMBQoAAABHnS4mjpqEzxnmWtgiiVNw
References: <4F1AC1D4.2080402@gmail.com> <mailman.4909.1327157944.27778.python-list@python.org> <pL-dnUjq2eH3t4bSnZ2dnUVZ5vudnZ2d@giganews.com> <CAFYqXL8PPOi2dy7M0ae+zCVB2yD6hPDdr7q8MhL0waadqoWvuw@mail.gmail.com> <CALwzidm5NvdqCjrSTap2BE_mrgK9BjK7FEeGAM_cX=BDMKMrzQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F1DA186.1040807@wisc.edu> <mailman.4983.1327351819.27778.python-list@python.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: while True or while 1
From: 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com>
To: comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: python-list@python.org
Precedence: list
Reply-To: comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com
Message-ID: <mailman.4993.1327358527.27778.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 58
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:19295

=E5=9C=A8 2012=E5=B9=B41=E6=9C=8824=E6=97=A5=E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=BA=8CUTC+=
8=E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=884=E6=97=B650=E5=88=8611=E7=A7=92=EF=BC=8CAndrea Crotti=
=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
> On 01/23/2012 06:05 PM, Evan Driscoll wrote:
> >
> > To play devil's advocate for a moment, if you have the choice between=
=20
> > two ways of writing something, A and B, where both are basically the=20
> > same in terms of difficulty to write, difficulty to maintain, and=20
> > difficulty to understand, but A is faster than B, even if just by a=20
> > hair, why NOT write A?
> >
> > It's like 'iter++' vs '++iter' in a C++ for loop. For ints, or for=20
> > some iterators with optimization, it makes no difference. But the=20
> > latter will be faster in debug builds, and *might* be faster in=20
> > release builds if you have a complicated iterator. So why NOT make=20
> > for(...; ...; ++i) the typical way of writing a for loop?
> >
> > In the Python world, is 'while 1' any harder to understand than 'while=
=20
> > True'? I'm about as staunch a supporter as you'll find for the idea=20
> > that 'while 1' should throw an exception, and even *I* think that=20
> > 'while 1' is about the least-offensive idiom out there. If 'while 1'=20
> > throws you off, I'd hate to see what you do when you learn that Python=
=20
> > accepts loops like 'while x' where the condition evaluates to true if=
=20
> > x is a non-zero integer and false if x is 0.
> >
> >
> > All that said, I like the 'while "stuff to do"' idea.
> >
> > Evan
>=20
> I think it's not the same, iter++ or ++iter is exactly the same in terms=
=20
> of readability, so of course
> if one might be a bit faster, it should be used.
>=20
> while 1 works because the 1 is converted to boolean automatically, but=20
> why not just writing a boolean
> in the first place?
>=20
> It's not bad of course but to me it's not very Pythonic, and reminds me C=
.
> At that point I also prefer the "while 'might be long loop'" idea, which=
=20
> at least
> adds some value *and* it might be very slightly faster too.

 A fake generator that can't be cascaded for more processing  can be called
 an iterator by the definition of an iterator.=20

But that is miss-leading in implementing silly trivial non-qualified iterat=
ors.