at wrote: > More pythonic in view would be: > > for x in [-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4] if x > 0: > ... more code ... Pythonic? Do you realize that Python hasn't even adopted well-known statements like 'switch' and 'do while' because they would be redundant? This could be more convenient to you, but certainly not pythonic. Cheers, -- Roberto Bonvallet