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.
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.
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 | "_")*
_ makes it clear that it should be ignored. Saying there's no point in doing this is like saying there's no point in commenting your code - because it would do exactly the same anyway._ instead of i is that it appears that pylint (and perhaps other linters) will read _ as a discard and not give an unused variable warning.You may be looking for
for _ in itertools.repeat(None, times): ...
this is THE fastest way to iterate times times in Python.
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.')
_ seems like a terrible idea, I wouldn't mind conflicting with it.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?
__nonzero__ with side-effects is a horrible idea.__call__ instead. while x(): isn't that much harder to write.Counter; sure, it's not reserved or in the built-in scope, but collections.Counter is a thing, and making a class of the same name risks maintainer confusion (not that this isn't risking that already).You can use _11 (or any number or another invalid identifier) to prevent name-colision with gettext. Any time you use underscore + invalid identifier you get a dummy name that can be used in for loop.
May be answer would depend on what problem you have with using iterator? may be use
i = 100
while i:
print i
i-=1
or
def loop(N, doSomething):
if not N:
return
print doSomething(N)
loop(N-1, doSomething)
loop(100, lambda a:a)
but frankly i see no point in using such approaches
sys.getrecursionlimit() (which defaults to somewhere in the low four digit range on CPython); using sys.setrecursionlimit would raise the limit, but eventually you'd hit the C stack limit and the interpreter would die with a stack overflow (not just raising a nice RuntimeError/RecursionError).I generally agree with solutions given above. Namely with:
for-loop (2 and more lines)while counter (3 and more lines)__nonzero__ implementation (many more lines) If one is to define an object as in #3 I would recommend implementing protocol for with keyword or apply contextlib.
Further I propose yet another solution. It is a 3 liner and is not of supreme elegance, but it uses itertools package and thus might be of an interest.
from itertools import (chain, repeat)
times = chain(repeat(True, 2), repeat(False))
while next(times):
print 'do stuff!'
In these example 2 is the number of times to iterate the loop. chain is wrapping two repeat iterators, the first being limited but the second is infinite. Remember that these are true iterator objects, hence they do not require infinite memory. Obviously this is much slower then solution #1. Unless written as a part of a function it might require a clean up for times variable.
chain is unnecessary, times = repeat(True, 2); while next(times, False): does the same thing.We have had some fun with the following, interesting to share so:
class RepeatFunction:
def __init__(self,n=1): self.n = n
def __call__(self,Func):
for i in xrange(self.n):
Func()
return Func
#----usage
k = 0
@RepeatFunction(7) #decorator for repeating function
def Job():
global k
print k
k += 1
print '---------'
Job()
Results:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
---------
7
If do_something is a simple function or can be wrapped in one, a simple map() can do_something range(some_number) times:
# Py2 version - map is eager, so it can be used alone
map(do_something, xrange(some_number))
# Py3 version - map is lazy, so it must be consumed to do the work at all;
# wrapping in list() would be equivalent to Py2, but if you don't use the return
# value, it's wastefully creating a temporary, possibly huge, list of junk.
# collections.deque with maxlen 0 can efficiently run a generator to exhaustion without
# storing any of the results; the itertools consume recipe uses it for that purpose.
from collections import deque
deque(map(do_something, range(some_number)), 0)
If you want to pass arguments to do_something, you may also find the itertools repeatfunc recipe reads well:
To pass the same arguments:
from collections import deque
from itertools import repeat, starmap
args = (..., my args here, ...)
# Same as Py3 map above, you must consume starmap (it's a lazy generator, even on Py2)
deque(starmap(do_something, repeat(args, some_number)), 0)
To pass different arguments:
argses = [(1, 2), (3, 4), ...]
deque(starmap(do_something, argses), 0)
We can use the while & yield, we can create our own loop function like this. Here you can refer to the official documentation.
def my_loop(start,n,step = 1):
while start < n:
yield start
start += step
for x in my_loop(0,15):
print(x)
In an answer to a related question, @japs timed four approaches at doing do_something() N times: a throwaway variable (standard), an underscore, itertools.repeat() (loopiter), and map(do_something, itertools.repeat()) (loopiter2). This yielded this comparison with clear differences:
standard: 0.8398549720004667
underscore: 0.8413165839992871
loopiter: 0.7110594899968419
loopiter2: 0.5891903560004721
I decided to loop inside do_something() so that it actually takes some time. This yielded this comparison:
standard: 8.756060799933039
underscore: 8.730245499988087
loopiter: 8.643029399914667
loopiter2: 8.489477000082843
My conclusion is that the cost of looping pales in comparison with the cost of doing something. The moral of this story is its better to focus on optimizing what you do instead of how you loop.
If you really want to avoid putting something with a name (either an iteration variable as in the OP, or unwanted list or unwanted generator returning true the wanted amount of time) you could do it if you really wanted:
for type('', (), {}).x in range(somenumber):
dosomething()
The trick that's used is to create an anonymous class type('', (), {}) which results in a class with empty name, but NB that it is not inserted in the local or global namespace (even if a nonempty name was supplied). Then you use a member of that class as iteration variable which is unreachable since the class it's a member of is unreachable.
What about:
while range(some_number):
#do something
range(some_number) is always true!some_number is less than or equal to 0, it's not infinite, it just never runs. :-) And it's rather inefficient for an infinite loop (especially on Py2), since it creates a fresh list (Py2) or range object (Py3) for each test (it's not a constant from the interpreter's point of view, it has to load range and some_number every loop, call range, then test the result).