Re: is for reliable?
- From: Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <bj_666@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 22:06:01 +0200
In <BmL%h.781$%k.3759@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pabloski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
Hi to all I have a question about the for statement of python. I have the
following piece of code where cachefilesSet is a set that contains the
names of 1398 html files cached on my hard disk
[snipped code]
this code stops at the 473th file instead of reaching 1398
however I changed the for and substituted it with a while in this way
while cachefilesSet:
fn = cachefilesSet.pop()
.......
.......
the while loop reaches the 1398th file and is some 3-4 times faster than
the for loop
How is this possible?
Good question. ``for`` loops are of course reliable. Can you give a
short self contained example that shows the behavior?
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
.
- References:
- is for reliable?
- From: pabloski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- is for reliable?
- Prev by Date: Re: Simulating simple electric circuits
- Next by Date: Re: is for reliable?
- Previous by thread: is for reliable?
- Next by thread: Re: is for reliable?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
