Is it possible to implement a Python for range loop without an iterator variable?
Is it possible to do following without the i
?
for i in range(some_number):
# do something
If you just want to do something N amount of times and don't need the iterator.
Solution 1:
Off the top of my head, no.
I think the best you could do is something like this:
def loop(f,n):
for i in xrange(n): f()
loop(lambda: <insert expression here>, 5)
But I think you can just live with the extra i
variable.
Here is the option to use the _
variable, which in reality, is just another variable.
for _ in range(n):
do_something()
Note that _
is assigned the last result that returned in an interactive python session:
>>> 1+2
3
>>> _
3
For this reason, I would not use it in this manner. I am unaware of any idiom as mentioned by Ryan. It can mess up your interpreter.
>>> for _ in xrange(10): pass
...
>>> _
9
>>> 1+2
3
>>> _
9
And according to Python grammar, it is an acceptable variable name:
identifier ::= (letter|"_") (letter | digit | "_")*
Solution 2:
You may be looking for
for _ in itertools.repeat(None, times): ...
this is THE fastest way to iterate times
times in Python.
Solution 3:
The general idiom for assigning to a value that isn't used is to name it _
.
for _ in range(times):
do_stuff()
Solution 4:
What everyone suggesting you to use _ isn't saying is that _ is frequently used as a shortcut to one of the gettext functions, so if you want your software to be available in more than one language then you're best off avoiding using it for other purposes.
import gettext
gettext.bindtextdomain('myapplication', '/path/to/my/language/directory')
gettext.textdomain('myapplication')
_ = gettext.gettext
# ...
print _('This is a translatable string.')
Solution 5:
Here's a random idea that utilizes (abuses?) the data model (Py3 link).
class Counter(object):
def __init__(self, val):
self.val = val
def __nonzero__(self):
self.val -= 1
return self.val >= 0
__bool__ = __nonzero__ # Alias to Py3 name to make code work unchanged on Py2 and Py3
x = Counter(5)
while x:
# Do something
pass
I wonder if there is something like this in the standard libraries?