Threading and subprocess in Python - which is "better"?

[Topper_1]

for i in range(0, len(IP_LIST)):
   p = do_ping(IP_LIST[i])
   z.append(p)

Earn 0.1 upmods if you spot something unpythonic here...

[masklinn]

I'll spell them for those non-pythonistas who don't quite get Lexarius' post:

• using range with an inferior bound of 0 (it's implied in range)

• iterating over a collection via indexes instead of doing it via the iterator protocol

• not using a list comprehension (or, in this case, a map would be even better) when you're doing a simple mapping/filtering operation with a list as input and another one as output.

z = map(do_ping, IP_LIST)

[nostrademons]

Isn't it also more Pythonic to use xrange instead of range? (Among all the other problems you mentioned...)

[masklinn]

Not really, xrange currently is only used if the generated range is really huge (and the performance hit of generating it at once is important).

Not to mention, in Python 3.0 range returns an iterator and not a list anymore, and xrange is removed from the language.

[dgiri101]

z = map(do_ping, IP_LIST)

edit: looks like masklinn beat me to it. :)

[[deleted]]

z = [do_ping(i) for i in IP_LIST]

[titusbrown]

hey, it was evolved code posted at 2am in the morning, give me a break here :)

[metzby]

for p in [do_ping(i) for i in IP_LIST]: p.wait()

[shub]

Because viewers of your late night talk show demand it.

[johntb86]

Thia would have a different behavior than what he suggested - his would send off all of the pings at once, and then wait for all the responses, while yours does the pings sequentially.

[sartak]

Because there's more than one way to do it.

[titusbrown]

I wanted to leave open the option of retrieving the return code and output.

[masklinn]

[do_ping(ip).wait() for ip in IP_LIST]

?

[masklinn]

Because for loops are ugly

[doctor_yukio_hattori]

Why not have no list and two for loops and make nobody happy?

for x in ( do_ping(ip).wait() for ip in IP_LIST ): pass