Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 3232574
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 17, 20262026-05-17T17:10:37+00:00 2026-05-17T17:10:37+00:00

Is there a more elegant way to write the following piece of Python? [foo()

  • 0

Is there a more elegant way to write the following piece of Python?

[foo() for i in range(10)]

I want to accumulate the results of foo() in a list, but I don’t need the iterator i.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-17T17:10:38+00:00Added an answer on May 17, 2026 at 5:10 pm

    One way to do this is to use _:

    [foo() for _ in range(10)]
    

    This means exactly the same thing, but by convention the use of _ indicates to the reader that the index isn’t actually used for anything.

    Presumably foo() returns something different every time you call it. If it doesn’t, and it returns the same thing each time, then you can:

    [foo()] * 10
    

    to replicate the result of calling foo() once, 10 times into a list.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Is there a more elegant way to write the following Microsoft SQL Server 2008
Is there more elegant way to write the following? try { ... // Some
Would there a more elegant way of writing the following syntax? Thread t0 =
Is there a more elegant way of implementing the following logic in Ruby? a
Is there a more elegant way to write this? try: author = Author.objects.get
Is there a better, more elegant (and/or possibly faster) way than boolean isNumber =
If there is more than one way, please list them. I only know of
Yes, There's More Than One Way To Do It but there must be a
As far as I know there is not a significantly more elegant way to
Is there a more elegant way to accomplish this. I have a string, where

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.