Related
My code:
my_list = [1,2,3,4,5]
my_list.extend([my_list.pop(), my_list.pop(), my_list.pop()])
So when I print it the result is
[1, 2, 5, 4, 3]
so why this Skew the last three Elements
Python's order of execution is inside-out and left-to-right.
So here python fill first pop() three elements from my_list and create a list from those, left to right -> [5, 4, 3] then it will execute extend appending everything front-to-back.
Essentially what your code does is:
my_list = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
second = []
second.append(my_list.pop())
second.append(my_list.pop())
second.append(my_list.pop())
my_list.extend(second)
This question already has answers here:
Sort a part of a list in place
(3 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
Suppose I have a list [2, 4, 1, 3, 5].
I want to sort the list just from index 1 to the end, which gives me [2, 1, 3, 4, 5]
How can I do it in Python?
(No extra spaces would be appreciated)
TL;DR:
Use sorted with a slicing assignment to keep the original list object without creating a new one:
l = [2, 4, 1, 3, 5]
l[1:] = sorted(l[1:])
print(l)
Output:
[2, 1, 3, 4, 5]
Longer Answer:
After the list is created, we will make a slicing assignment:
l[1:] =
Now you might be wondering what does [1:], it is slicing the list and starts from the second index, so the first index will be dropped. Python's indexing starts from zero, : means get everything after the index before, but if it was [1:3] it will only get values that are in between the indexes 1 and 3, let's say your list is:
l = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
If you use:
print(l[1:])
It will result in:
[2, 3, 4, 5]
And if you use:
print(l[1:3])
It will result in:
[2, 3]
About slicing, read more here if you want to.
And after slicing we have an equal sign =, that just simply changes what's before the = sign to what's after the = sign, so in this case, we use l[1:], and that gives [2, 3, 4, 5], it will change that to whatever is after the = sign.
If you use:
l[1:] = [100, 200, 300, 400]
print(l)
It will result in:
[1, 100, 200, 300, 400]
To learn more about it check out this.
After that, we got sorted, which is default builtin function, it simple sorts the list from small to big, let's say we have the below list:
l = [3, 2, 1, 4]
If you use:
print(sorted(l))
It will result in:
[1, 2, 3, 4]
To learn more about it check this.
After that we come back to our first topic about slicing, with l[1:], but from here you know that it isn't only used for assignments, you can apply functions to it and deal with it, like here we use sorted.
Maybe temporarily put something there that's smaller than the rest? Should be faster than the other solutions. And gets as close to your "No extra spaces" wish as you can get when using sort or sorted.
>>> tmp = l[0]
>>> l[0] = float('-inf')
>>> l.sort()
>>> l[0] = tmp
>>> l
[2, 1, 3, 4, 5]
Benchmarks
For the example list, 1,000,000 iterations (and mine of course preparing that special value only once):
sort_u10 0.8149 seconds
sort_chris 0.8569 seconds
sort_heap 0.7550 seconds
sort_heap2 0.5982 seconds # using -1 instead of -inf
For 50,000 lists like [int(x) for x in os.urandom(100)]:
sort_u10 0.4778 seconds
sort_chris 0.4786 seconds
sort_heap 0.8106 seconds
sort_heap2 0.4437 seconds # using -1 instead of -inf
Benchmark code:
import timeit, os
def sort_u10(l):
l[1:] = sorted(l[1:])
def sort_chris(l):
l = l[:1] + sorted(l[1:])
def sort_heap(l, smallest=float('-inf')):
tmp = l[0]
l[0] = smallest
l.sort()
l[0] = tmp
def sort_heap2(l):
tmp = l[0]
l[0] = -1
l.sort()
l[0] = tmp
for _ in range(3):
for sort in sort_u10, sort_chris, sort_heap, sort_heap2, sort_rev:
number, repeat = 1_000_000, 5
data = iter([[2, 4, 1, 3, 5] for _ in range(number * repeat)])
# number, repeat = 50_000, 5
# data = iter([[int(x) for x in os.urandom(100)] for _ in range(number * repeat)])
t = timeit.repeat(lambda: sort(next(data)), number=number, repeat=repeat)
print('%10s %.4f seconds' % (sort.__name__, min(t)))
print()
Use sorted with slicing:
l[:1] + sorted(l[1:])
Output:
[2, 1, 3, 4, 5]
For the special case that you actually have, according to our comments:
Q: I'm curious: Why do you want this? – Heap Overflow
A: I'm trying to make a next_permutation() in python – nwice13
Q: Do you really need to sort for that, though? Not just reverse? – Heap Overflow
A: Yup, reverse is ok, but I just curious to ask about sorting this way. – nwice13
I'd do that like this:
l[1:] = l[:0:-1]
You can define your own function in python using slicing and sorted and this function (your custom function) should take start and end index of the list.
Since list is mutable in python, I have written the function in such a way it doesn't modify the list passed. Feel free to modify the function. You can modify the list passed to this function to save memory if required.
def sortedList(li, start=0, end=None):
if end is None:
end = len(li)
fi = []
fi[:start] = li[:start]
fi[start:end] = sorted(li[start:end])
return fi
li = [2, 1, 4, 3, 0]
print(li)
print(sortedList(li, 1))
Output:
[2, 1, 4, 3, 0]
[2, 0, 1, 3, 4]
I have a question that I haven't quite found a good solution to. I'm looking for a better way to append function output to two or more lists, without using temp variables. Example below:
def f():
return 5,6
a,b = [], []
for i in range(10):
tmp_a, tmp_b = f()
a.append(tmp_a)
b.append(temp_b)
I've tried playing around with something like zip(*f()), but haven't quite found a solution that way.
Any way to remove those temp vars would be super helpful though, thanks!
Edit for additional info:
In this situation, the number of outputs from the function will always equal the number of lists that are being appended to. The main reason I'm looking to get rid of temps is for the case where there are maybe 8-10 function outputs, and having that many temp variables would get messy (though I don't really even like having two).
def f():
return 5,6
a,b = zip(*[f() for i in range(10)])
# this will create two tuples of elements 5 and 6 you can change
# them to list by type casting it like list(a), list(b)
First solution: we make a list of all results, then transpose it
def f(i):
return i, 2*i
# First make a list of all your results
l = [f(i) for i in range(5)]
# [(0, 0), (1, 2), (2, 4), (3, 6), (4, 8)]
# then transpose it using zip
a, b = zip(*l)
print(list(a))
print(list(b))
# [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
# [0, 2, 4, 6, 8]
Or, all in one line:
a, b = zip(*[f(i) for i in range(5)])
A different solution, building the lists at each iteration, so that you can use them while they're being built:
def f(i):
return 2*i, i**2, i**3
doubles = []
squares = []
cubes = []
results = [doubles, squares, cubes]
for i in range(1, 4):
list(map(lambda res, val: res.append(val), results, f(i)))
print(results)
# [[2], [1], [1]]
# [[2, 4], [1, 4], [1, 8]]
# [[2, 4, 6], [1, 4, 9], [1, 8, 27]]
print(cubes)
# [1, 8, 27]
Note about list(map(...)): in Python3, map returns a generator, so we must use it if we want the lambda to be executed.list does it.
For your specific case, the zip answers are great.
Using itertools.cycle and itertools.chain is a different approach from the existing answers that might come in handy if you have a lot of pre-existing lists that you want to append to in a round-robin fashion. It also works when your function returns more values than you have lists.
>>> from itertools import cycle, chain
>>> a, b = [], [] # new, empty lists only for demo purposes
>>> for l, v in zip(cycle([a, b]), (chain(*(f() for i in range(10))))):
... l.append(v)
...
>>> a
[5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5]
>>> b
[6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6]
I'd do
tmp = f()
a.append(tmp[0])
b.append(tmp[1])
Not sure how pythonic it is for you though.
I need help writing a function that will take a single list and return a different list where every element in the list is in its own original list.
I know that I'll have to iterate through the original list that I pass through and then append the value depending on whether or not the value is already in my list or create a sublist and add that sublist to the final list.
an example would be:
input:[1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 3]
Output:[[1,1,1], [2,2,2], [3,3]]
I'd do this in two steps:
>>> import collections
>>> inputs = [1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 3]
>>> counts = collections.Counter(inputs)
>>> counts
Counter({1: 3, 2: 3, 3: 2})
>>> outputs = [[key] * count for key, count in counts.items()]
>>> outputs
[[1, 1, 1], [2, 2, 2], [3, 3]]
(The fact that these happen to be in sorted numerical order, and also in the order of first appearance, is just a coincidence here. Counters, like normal dictionaries, store their keys in arbitrary order, and you should assume that [[3, 3], [1, 1, 1], [2, 2, 2]] would be just as possible a result. If that's not acceptable, you need a bit more work.)
So, how does it work?
The first step creates a Counter, which is just a special subclass of dict made for counting occurrences of each key. One of the many nifty things about it is that you can just pass it any iterable (like a list) and it will count up how many times each element appears. It's a trivial one-liner, it's obvious and readable once you know how Counter works, and it's even about as efficient as anything could possibly be.*
But that isn't the output format you wanted. How do we get that? Well, we have to get back from 1: 3 (meaning "3 copies of 1") to [1, 1, 1]). You can write that as [key] * count.** And the rest is just a bog-standard list comprehension.
If you look at the docs for the collections module, they start with a link to the source. Many modules in the stdlib are like this, because they're meant to serve as source code for learning from as well as usable code. So, you should be able to figure out how the Counter constructor works. (It's basically just calling that _count_elements function.) Since that's the only part of Counter you're actually using beyond a basic dict, you could just write that part yourself. (But really, once you've understood how it works, there's no good reason not to use it, right?)
* For each element, it's just doing a hash table lookup (and insert if needed) and a += 1. And in CPython, it all happens in reasonably-optimized C.
** Note that we don't have to worry about whether to use [key] * count vs. [key for _ in range(count)] here, because the values have to be immutable, or at least of an "equality is as good as identity" type, or they wouldn't be usable as keys.
The most time efficient would be to use a dictionary:
collector = {}
for elem in inputlist:
collector.setdefault(elem, []).append(elem)
output = collector.values()
The other, more costly option is to sort, then group using itertools.groupby():
from itertools import groupby
output = [list(g) for k, g in groupby(sorted(inputlist))]
Demo:
>>> inputlist = [1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 3]
>>> collector = {}
>>> for elem in inputlist:
... collector.setdefault(elem, []).append(elem)
...
>>> collector.values()
[[1, 1, 1], [2, 2, 2], [3, 3]]
>>> from itertools import groupby
>>> [list(g) for k, g in groupby(sorted(inputlist))]
[[1, 1, 1], [2, 2, 2], [3, 3]]
What about this, as you said you wanted a function:
def makeList(user_list):
user_list.sort()
x = user_list[0]
output = [[]]
for i in user_list:
if i == x:
output[-1].append(i)
else:
output.append([i])
x = i
return output
>>> print makeList([1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 3])
[[1, 1, 1], [2, 2, 2], [3, 3]]
I am trying to figure out how to append multiple values to a list in Python. I know there are few methods to do so, such as manually input the values, or put the append operation in a for loop, or the append and extend functions.
However, I wonder if there is a more neat way to do so? Maybe a certain package or function?
You can use the sequence method list.extend to extend the list by multiple values from any kind of iterable, being it another list or any other thing that provides a sequence of values.
>>> lst = [1, 2]
>>> lst.append(3)
>>> lst.append(4)
>>> lst
[1, 2, 3, 4]
>>> lst.extend([5, 6, 7])
>>> lst.extend((8, 9, 10))
>>> lst
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
>>> lst.extend(range(11, 14))
>>> lst
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]
So you can use list.append() to append a single value, and list.extend() to append multiple values.
Other than the append function, if by "multiple values" you mean another list, you can simply concatenate them like so.
>>> a = [1,2,3]
>>> b = [4,5,6]
>>> a + b
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
If you take a look at the official docs, you'll see right below append, extend. That's what your looking for.
There's also itertools.chain if you are more interested in efficient iteration than ending up with a fully populated data structure.
if the number of items was saved in a variable say n. you can use list comprehension and plus sign for list expansion.
lst = ['A', 'B']
n = 1
new_lst = lst + ['flag'+str(x) for x in range(n)]
print(my_lst)
>>> ['A','B','flag0','flag1']
One way you can work around this type of problem is -
Here we are inserting a list to the existing list by creating a variable new_values.
Note that we are inserting the values in the second index, i.e. a[2]
a = [1, 2, 7, 8]
new_values = [3, 4, 5, 6]
a.insert(2, new_values)
print(a)
But here insert() method will append the values as a list.
So here goes another way of doing the same thing, but this time, we'll actually insert the values in between the items.
a = [1, 2, 7, 8]
a[2:2] = [3,4,5,6]
print(a)