python - Removing from a list while iterating over it

Question

The following code:

a = list(range(10))
remove = False
for b in a:
    if remove:
        a.remove(b)
    remove = not remove
print(a)

Outputs [0, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9], instead of [0, 2, 4, 6, 8] when using Python 3.2.

1. Why does it output these particular values?
2. Why is no error given to indicate that underlying iterator is being modified?
3. Have the mechanics changed from earlier versions of Python with respect to this behaviour?

Note that I am not looking to work around the behaviour, but to understand it.

Answer 1

I debated answering this for a while, because similar questions have been asked many times here. But it's just unique enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. (Still, I won't object if others vote to close.) Here's a visual explanation of what is happening.

[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]       <-  b = 0; remove? no
 ^
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]       <-  b = 1; remove? yes
    ^
[0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]          <-  b = 3; remove? no
       ^
[0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]          <-  b = 4; remove? yes
          ^
[0, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]             <-  b = 6; remove? no
             ^
[0, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]             <-  b = 7; remove? yes
                ^
[0, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9]                <-  b = 9; remove? no
                   ^

Since no one else has, I'll attempt to answer your other questions:

Why is no error given to indicate that underlying iterator is being modified?

To throw an error without prohibiting many perfectly valid loop constructions, Python would have to know a lot about what's going on, and it would probably have to get that information at runtime. All that information would take time to process. It would make Python a lot slower, in just the place where speed really counts -- a loop.

Have the mechanics changed from earlier versions of Python with respect to this behaviour?

In short, no. Or at least I highly doubt it, and certainly it has behaved this way since I learned Python (2.4). Frankly I would expect any straightforward implementation of a mutable sequence to behave in just this way. Anyone who knows better, please correct me. (Actually, a quick doc lookup confirms that the text that Mikola cited has been in the tutorial since version 1.4!)