Write output file, collating groups of up to 7 input lines
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
$begingroup$
I have this code that reads a file and after processing a few lines writes the output to a second file:
num_reads = 7
with open('data.txt') as read_file:
with open('new_data.txt', 'w') as write_file:
while (True):
lines =
try: # expect errors if the number of lines in the file are not a multiplication of num_reads
for i in range(num_reads):
lines.append(next(read_file)) # when the file finishes an exception occurs here
#do sutff with the lines (exactly num_reads number of lines)
processed = " ".join(list(map(lambda x: x.replace("n", ''), lines)))
write_file.write(processed + 'n')
except StopIteration: # here we process the (possibly) insufficent last lines
#do stuff with the lines (less that num_reads)
processed = " ".join(list(map(lambda x: x.replace("n", ''), lines)))
write_file.write(processed + 'n')
break
Here is the input file (data.txt
):
line1
line2
line3
line4
line5
line7
line8
line9
And this is the output file that has the desired state:
line1 line2 line3 line4 line5 line7
line8 line9
This works correctly but as I wish to do the same processing and writing procedure in both cases (when the number of elements is 7 and when the file finishes and the exception is raised) I think the above code violates DRY principle even if I define a new function and call it once in try
block and once in except
before break
. Any other ordering that I could come up with was either causing an infinite loop or losing the final lines.
I appreciate any comments on handling this issue, as it is not limited to this case and I had faced it in other cases as well.
python file
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have this code that reads a file and after processing a few lines writes the output to a second file:
num_reads = 7
with open('data.txt') as read_file:
with open('new_data.txt', 'w') as write_file:
while (True):
lines =
try: # expect errors if the number of lines in the file are not a multiplication of num_reads
for i in range(num_reads):
lines.append(next(read_file)) # when the file finishes an exception occurs here
#do sutff with the lines (exactly num_reads number of lines)
processed = " ".join(list(map(lambda x: x.replace("n", ''), lines)))
write_file.write(processed + 'n')
except StopIteration: # here we process the (possibly) insufficent last lines
#do stuff with the lines (less that num_reads)
processed = " ".join(list(map(lambda x: x.replace("n", ''), lines)))
write_file.write(processed + 'n')
break
Here is the input file (data.txt
):
line1
line2
line3
line4
line5
line7
line8
line9
And this is the output file that has the desired state:
line1 line2 line3 line4 line5 line7
line8 line9
This works correctly but as I wish to do the same processing and writing procedure in both cases (when the number of elements is 7 and when the file finishes and the exception is raised) I think the above code violates DRY principle even if I define a new function and call it once in try
block and once in except
before break
. Any other ordering that I could come up with was either causing an infinite loop or losing the final lines.
I appreciate any comments on handling this issue, as it is not limited to this case and I had faced it in other cases as well.
python file
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@200_success done! :)
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 5:23
1
$begingroup$
(Welcom to Code Review!)
$endgroup$
– greybeard
Jan 18 at 7:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have this code that reads a file and after processing a few lines writes the output to a second file:
num_reads = 7
with open('data.txt') as read_file:
with open('new_data.txt', 'w') as write_file:
while (True):
lines =
try: # expect errors if the number of lines in the file are not a multiplication of num_reads
for i in range(num_reads):
lines.append(next(read_file)) # when the file finishes an exception occurs here
#do sutff with the lines (exactly num_reads number of lines)
processed = " ".join(list(map(lambda x: x.replace("n", ''), lines)))
write_file.write(processed + 'n')
except StopIteration: # here we process the (possibly) insufficent last lines
#do stuff with the lines (less that num_reads)
processed = " ".join(list(map(lambda x: x.replace("n", ''), lines)))
write_file.write(processed + 'n')
break
Here is the input file (data.txt
):
line1
line2
line3
line4
line5
line7
line8
line9
And this is the output file that has the desired state:
line1 line2 line3 line4 line5 line7
line8 line9
This works correctly but as I wish to do the same processing and writing procedure in both cases (when the number of elements is 7 and when the file finishes and the exception is raised) I think the above code violates DRY principle even if I define a new function and call it once in try
block and once in except
before break
. Any other ordering that I could come up with was either causing an infinite loop or losing the final lines.
I appreciate any comments on handling this issue, as it is not limited to this case and I had faced it in other cases as well.
python file
$endgroup$
I have this code that reads a file and after processing a few lines writes the output to a second file:
num_reads = 7
with open('data.txt') as read_file:
with open('new_data.txt', 'w') as write_file:
while (True):
lines =
try: # expect errors if the number of lines in the file are not a multiplication of num_reads
for i in range(num_reads):
lines.append(next(read_file)) # when the file finishes an exception occurs here
#do sutff with the lines (exactly num_reads number of lines)
processed = " ".join(list(map(lambda x: x.replace("n", ''), lines)))
write_file.write(processed + 'n')
except StopIteration: # here we process the (possibly) insufficent last lines
#do stuff with the lines (less that num_reads)
processed = " ".join(list(map(lambda x: x.replace("n", ''), lines)))
write_file.write(processed + 'n')
break
Here is the input file (data.txt
):
line1
line2
line3
line4
line5
line7
line8
line9
And this is the output file that has the desired state:
line1 line2 line3 line4 line5 line7
line8 line9
This works correctly but as I wish to do the same processing and writing procedure in both cases (when the number of elements is 7 and when the file finishes and the exception is raised) I think the above code violates DRY principle even if I define a new function and call it once in try
block and once in except
before break
. Any other ordering that I could come up with was either causing an infinite loop or losing the final lines.
I appreciate any comments on handling this issue, as it is not limited to this case and I had faced it in other cases as well.
python file
python file
edited Jan 18 at 6:37
200_success
129k15153415
129k15153415
asked Jan 18 at 3:58
Farzad VertigoFarzad Vertigo
1184
1184
$begingroup$
@200_success done! :)
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 5:23
1
$begingroup$
(Welcom to Code Review!)
$endgroup$
– greybeard
Jan 18 at 7:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@200_success done! :)
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 5:23
1
$begingroup$
(Welcom to Code Review!)
$endgroup$
– greybeard
Jan 18 at 7:49
$begingroup$
@200_success done! :)
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 5:23
$begingroup$
@200_success done! :)
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 5:23
1
1
$begingroup$
(Welcom to Code Review!)
$endgroup$
– greybeard
Jan 18 at 7:49
$begingroup$
(Welcom to Code Review!)
$endgroup$
– greybeard
Jan 18 at 7:49
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Disclaimer: This question belongs to Stack Overflow, and I voted to migrate it. Therefore, the answer is not a review.
Keep in mind that principles are there to guide you. They should be treated like guard rails, rather than roadblocks.
I would argue that
while (....)
foo(7);
foo(3);
does not violate DRY. Your situation is pretty much the same.
That said, your idea of defining function is valid. You just factoring out the wrong code. Factor out reading. Consider
def read_n_lines(infile, n):
lines =
try:
for _ in range(n):
lines.append(next(infile))
except StopIteration:
pass
return lines
and use it as
while True:
lines = read_n_lines(infile, 7)
if len(lines) == 0:
break
process_lines(lines)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. Beautiful idea. I appreciate it.
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 6:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You should avoid writing code with exception-handling altogether. Usually, when you want to write a fancy loop in Python, the itertools
module is your friend. In this case, I would take advantage of itertools.groupby()
to form groups of lines, assisted by itertools.count()
to provide the line numbers.
import itertools
def chunks(iterable, n):
i = itertools.count()
for _, group in itertools.groupby(iterable, lambda _: next(i) // n):
yield group
with open('data.txt') as read_f, open('new_data.txt', 'w') as write_f:
for group in chunks(read_f, 7):
print(' '.join(line.rstrip() for line in group), file=write_f)
A few other minor changes:
- You only need one
with
block to open both files. line.rstrip()
is more convenient thanlambda x: x.replace("n", '')
print(…, file=write_file)
is slightly more elegant thanwrite_file.write(… + 'n')
.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Isn't thegrouper
recipe more appropriate to make fixed-length chunks? Or did you purposefully avoid it to avoid dealing with the fill values at the end of the iteration?
$endgroup$
– Mathias Ettinger
Jan 18 at 8:10
1
$begingroup$
@MathiasEttinger Thegrouper()
recipe works best for complete groups; you would have to specify afillvalue
, then strip out that padding.
$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 8:19
$begingroup$
@Graipher I don't see any reason to copy a recipe that doesn't do what we want, then work around the unwanted behavior by stripping off junk.
$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 15:06
$begingroup$
@200_success: I agree now that it is too cumbersome. We should probably clean up the comments.
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Jan 18 at 15:07
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f211737%2fwrite-output-file-collating-groups-of-up-to-7-input-lines%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Disclaimer: This question belongs to Stack Overflow, and I voted to migrate it. Therefore, the answer is not a review.
Keep in mind that principles are there to guide you. They should be treated like guard rails, rather than roadblocks.
I would argue that
while (....)
foo(7);
foo(3);
does not violate DRY. Your situation is pretty much the same.
That said, your idea of defining function is valid. You just factoring out the wrong code. Factor out reading. Consider
def read_n_lines(infile, n):
lines =
try:
for _ in range(n):
lines.append(next(infile))
except StopIteration:
pass
return lines
and use it as
while True:
lines = read_n_lines(infile, 7)
if len(lines) == 0:
break
process_lines(lines)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. Beautiful idea. I appreciate it.
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 6:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Disclaimer: This question belongs to Stack Overflow, and I voted to migrate it. Therefore, the answer is not a review.
Keep in mind that principles are there to guide you. They should be treated like guard rails, rather than roadblocks.
I would argue that
while (....)
foo(7);
foo(3);
does not violate DRY. Your situation is pretty much the same.
That said, your idea of defining function is valid. You just factoring out the wrong code. Factor out reading. Consider
def read_n_lines(infile, n):
lines =
try:
for _ in range(n):
lines.append(next(infile))
except StopIteration:
pass
return lines
and use it as
while True:
lines = read_n_lines(infile, 7)
if len(lines) == 0:
break
process_lines(lines)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. Beautiful idea. I appreciate it.
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 6:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Disclaimer: This question belongs to Stack Overflow, and I voted to migrate it. Therefore, the answer is not a review.
Keep in mind that principles are there to guide you. They should be treated like guard rails, rather than roadblocks.
I would argue that
while (....)
foo(7);
foo(3);
does not violate DRY. Your situation is pretty much the same.
That said, your idea of defining function is valid. You just factoring out the wrong code. Factor out reading. Consider
def read_n_lines(infile, n):
lines =
try:
for _ in range(n):
lines.append(next(infile))
except StopIteration:
pass
return lines
and use it as
while True:
lines = read_n_lines(infile, 7)
if len(lines) == 0:
break
process_lines(lines)
$endgroup$
Disclaimer: This question belongs to Stack Overflow, and I voted to migrate it. Therefore, the answer is not a review.
Keep in mind that principles are there to guide you. They should be treated like guard rails, rather than roadblocks.
I would argue that
while (....)
foo(7);
foo(3);
does not violate DRY. Your situation is pretty much the same.
That said, your idea of defining function is valid. You just factoring out the wrong code. Factor out reading. Consider
def read_n_lines(infile, n):
lines =
try:
for _ in range(n):
lines.append(next(infile))
except StopIteration:
pass
return lines
and use it as
while True:
lines = read_n_lines(infile, 7)
if len(lines) == 0:
break
process_lines(lines)
answered Jan 18 at 6:00
vnpvnp
39.3k13099
39.3k13099
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. Beautiful idea. I appreciate it.
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 6:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. Beautiful idea. I appreciate it.
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 6:05
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. Beautiful idea. I appreciate it.
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 6:05
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. Beautiful idea. I appreciate it.
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 6:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You should avoid writing code with exception-handling altogether. Usually, when you want to write a fancy loop in Python, the itertools
module is your friend. In this case, I would take advantage of itertools.groupby()
to form groups of lines, assisted by itertools.count()
to provide the line numbers.
import itertools
def chunks(iterable, n):
i = itertools.count()
for _, group in itertools.groupby(iterable, lambda _: next(i) // n):
yield group
with open('data.txt') as read_f, open('new_data.txt', 'w') as write_f:
for group in chunks(read_f, 7):
print(' '.join(line.rstrip() for line in group), file=write_f)
A few other minor changes:
- You only need one
with
block to open both files. line.rstrip()
is more convenient thanlambda x: x.replace("n", '')
print(…, file=write_file)
is slightly more elegant thanwrite_file.write(… + 'n')
.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Isn't thegrouper
recipe more appropriate to make fixed-length chunks? Or did you purposefully avoid it to avoid dealing with the fill values at the end of the iteration?
$endgroup$
– Mathias Ettinger
Jan 18 at 8:10
1
$begingroup$
@MathiasEttinger Thegrouper()
recipe works best for complete groups; you would have to specify afillvalue
, then strip out that padding.
$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 8:19
$begingroup$
@Graipher I don't see any reason to copy a recipe that doesn't do what we want, then work around the unwanted behavior by stripping off junk.
$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 15:06
$begingroup$
@200_success: I agree now that it is too cumbersome. We should probably clean up the comments.
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Jan 18 at 15:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You should avoid writing code with exception-handling altogether. Usually, when you want to write a fancy loop in Python, the itertools
module is your friend. In this case, I would take advantage of itertools.groupby()
to form groups of lines, assisted by itertools.count()
to provide the line numbers.
import itertools
def chunks(iterable, n):
i = itertools.count()
for _, group in itertools.groupby(iterable, lambda _: next(i) // n):
yield group
with open('data.txt') as read_f, open('new_data.txt', 'w') as write_f:
for group in chunks(read_f, 7):
print(' '.join(line.rstrip() for line in group), file=write_f)
A few other minor changes:
- You only need one
with
block to open both files. line.rstrip()
is more convenient thanlambda x: x.replace("n", '')
print(…, file=write_file)
is slightly more elegant thanwrite_file.write(… + 'n')
.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Isn't thegrouper
recipe more appropriate to make fixed-length chunks? Or did you purposefully avoid it to avoid dealing with the fill values at the end of the iteration?
$endgroup$
– Mathias Ettinger
Jan 18 at 8:10
1
$begingroup$
@MathiasEttinger Thegrouper()
recipe works best for complete groups; you would have to specify afillvalue
, then strip out that padding.
$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 8:19
$begingroup$
@Graipher I don't see any reason to copy a recipe that doesn't do what we want, then work around the unwanted behavior by stripping off junk.
$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 15:06
$begingroup$
@200_success: I agree now that it is too cumbersome. We should probably clean up the comments.
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Jan 18 at 15:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You should avoid writing code with exception-handling altogether. Usually, when you want to write a fancy loop in Python, the itertools
module is your friend. In this case, I would take advantage of itertools.groupby()
to form groups of lines, assisted by itertools.count()
to provide the line numbers.
import itertools
def chunks(iterable, n):
i = itertools.count()
for _, group in itertools.groupby(iterable, lambda _: next(i) // n):
yield group
with open('data.txt') as read_f, open('new_data.txt', 'w') as write_f:
for group in chunks(read_f, 7):
print(' '.join(line.rstrip() for line in group), file=write_f)
A few other minor changes:
- You only need one
with
block to open both files. line.rstrip()
is more convenient thanlambda x: x.replace("n", '')
print(…, file=write_file)
is slightly more elegant thanwrite_file.write(… + 'n')
.
$endgroup$
You should avoid writing code with exception-handling altogether. Usually, when you want to write a fancy loop in Python, the itertools
module is your friend. In this case, I would take advantage of itertools.groupby()
to form groups of lines, assisted by itertools.count()
to provide the line numbers.
import itertools
def chunks(iterable, n):
i = itertools.count()
for _, group in itertools.groupby(iterable, lambda _: next(i) // n):
yield group
with open('data.txt') as read_f, open('new_data.txt', 'w') as write_f:
for group in chunks(read_f, 7):
print(' '.join(line.rstrip() for line in group), file=write_f)
A few other minor changes:
- You only need one
with
block to open both files. line.rstrip()
is more convenient thanlambda x: x.replace("n", '')
print(…, file=write_file)
is slightly more elegant thanwrite_file.write(… + 'n')
.
answered Jan 18 at 7:13
200_success200_success
129k15153415
129k15153415
2
$begingroup$
Isn't thegrouper
recipe more appropriate to make fixed-length chunks? Or did you purposefully avoid it to avoid dealing with the fill values at the end of the iteration?
$endgroup$
– Mathias Ettinger
Jan 18 at 8:10
1
$begingroup$
@MathiasEttinger Thegrouper()
recipe works best for complete groups; you would have to specify afillvalue
, then strip out that padding.
$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 8:19
$begingroup$
@Graipher I don't see any reason to copy a recipe that doesn't do what we want, then work around the unwanted behavior by stripping off junk.
$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 15:06
$begingroup$
@200_success: I agree now that it is too cumbersome. We should probably clean up the comments.
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Jan 18 at 15:07
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Isn't thegrouper
recipe more appropriate to make fixed-length chunks? Or did you purposefully avoid it to avoid dealing with the fill values at the end of the iteration?
$endgroup$
– Mathias Ettinger
Jan 18 at 8:10
1
$begingroup$
@MathiasEttinger Thegrouper()
recipe works best for complete groups; you would have to specify afillvalue
, then strip out that padding.
$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 8:19
$begingroup$
@Graipher I don't see any reason to copy a recipe that doesn't do what we want, then work around the unwanted behavior by stripping off junk.
$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 15:06
$begingroup$
@200_success: I agree now that it is too cumbersome. We should probably clean up the comments.
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Jan 18 at 15:07
2
2
$begingroup$
Isn't the
grouper
recipe more appropriate to make fixed-length chunks? Or did you purposefully avoid it to avoid dealing with the fill values at the end of the iteration?$endgroup$
– Mathias Ettinger
Jan 18 at 8:10
$begingroup$
Isn't the
grouper
recipe more appropriate to make fixed-length chunks? Or did you purposefully avoid it to avoid dealing with the fill values at the end of the iteration?$endgroup$
– Mathias Ettinger
Jan 18 at 8:10
1
1
$begingroup$
@MathiasEttinger The
grouper()
recipe works best for complete groups; you would have to specify a fillvalue
, then strip out that padding.$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 8:19
$begingroup$
@MathiasEttinger The
grouper()
recipe works best for complete groups; you would have to specify a fillvalue
, then strip out that padding.$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 8:19
$begingroup$
@Graipher I don't see any reason to copy a recipe that doesn't do what we want, then work around the unwanted behavior by stripping off junk.
$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 15:06
$begingroup$
@Graipher I don't see any reason to copy a recipe that doesn't do what we want, then work around the unwanted behavior by stripping off junk.
$endgroup$
– 200_success
Jan 18 at 15:06
$begingroup$
@200_success: I agree now that it is too cumbersome. We should probably clean up the comments.
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Jan 18 at 15:07
$begingroup$
@200_success: I agree now that it is too cumbersome. We should probably clean up the comments.
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Jan 18 at 15:07
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f211737%2fwrite-output-file-collating-groups-of-up-to-7-input-lines%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
@200_success done! :)
$endgroup$
– Farzad Vertigo
Jan 18 at 5:23
1
$begingroup$
(Welcom to Code Review!)
$endgroup$
– greybeard
Jan 18 at 7:49