Steven Bethard wrote:
> I would prefer that the alternate iter() form was broken off into
> another separate function, say, iterfunc(), that would let me write
> Jp's solution something like:
>
> for chunk in iterfunc('', f1.read, CHUNK_SIZE):
> f2.write(chunk)
Benji York wrote:
> for chunk in
On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Steven Bethard wrote:
> On 6/15/05, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Steven Bethard wrote:
>>
>>> I would prefer that the alternate iter() form was broken off into
>>> another separate function, say, iterfunc(), that would let me write
>>> Jp's solution som
Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/15/05, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Steven Bethard wrote:
>> > I would prefer that the alternate iter() form was broken off into
>> > another separate function, say, iterfunc(), that would let me write
>> > Jp's solution something like:
On 6/15/05, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
> > I would prefer that the alternate iter() form was broken off into
> > another separate function, say, iterfunc(), that would let me write
> > Jp's solution something like:
> >
> > for chunk in iterfunc('', f1.read, CHUNK_
Steven Bethard wrote:
> It reminds me of one of my minor gripes about the standard lib -- a
> number of functions that take another function as an argument don't
> take *args and **kwargs to be passed to that function when it's
> called. The iter() alternate form is a common example of this. I
> wo
Jp Calderone:
> for chunk in iter(lambda: f1.read(CHUNK_SIZE), ''):
> f2.write(chunk)
Phillip J. Eby:
> More seriously, I think your translation makes an excellent argument in
> *favor* of having a do/while statement for greater clarity. :)
Michael Chermside
> Interesting... I had the oppo
