I am trying to directly input raw_input using the least amount of lines possible(without extra variables and whatever) and call the function with it. The problem is, I need a list. I am quite aware of the split function, however
histogram(split.raw_input("List, sire: "))
throws naming errors. I didn't think it would work, but I thought I'd try anyway. I'm sure the python gods know how, I've seen pretty ridiculous "pythonic" stuff or whatever it is you call it, but unfortunately I'm not that advanced yet.
Edit: I suppose I should add the rest of my code, but it is most likely entirely irrelevant.
#!/usr/bin/python
def histogram(x):
for i in x:
print int(i) * "*"
Referrals to advanced/long reading is appreciated, I'd like to try to soak in as much as I can.
Thanks, got it working.
Without using any modules, this is how it's done:
#!/usr/bin/python
def string_len(x):
for i in x:
print int(i) * "*"
string_len(raw_input("String here").split())
Or, completely replace any occurrence of string_len with histogram.
Related
For example, in my Codecademy it says,
def spam():
print ("Eggs!")
but I feel like you could just print Eggs! if you wanted without the def spam():
Somebody please help
But you could do:
def spam():
print("Eggs!")
And then call spam a thousand times in your code. Now, if you want to change that to print "Bacon!" you only have to change it once, rather than a thousand times.
def spam():
print("Bacon!")
Def helps to make your code reusable. In this case, we can think that it's useless indeed. But in other case, you'll want to be able to call a part of code multiple time !
In this case you're right, there is no reason to create a function for just print, but when you get to more complex writing a function saves you a lot of precious time and space. For example I want to get a specific part of a .json with API, instead of writing all these lines again and again I will write it once and call it whenever I need it.
Best practice would be to define the string once and call the function as many times as needed. It will be easier to maintain. Yes, you can find and replace all instances, but you risk accidentally changing more than you bargained for. Additionally, if you were working on a shared project and someone were to merge code after you made that change, you’d have to go back and update all their new code to reflect the change. If they had just been calling spam(), there’s no update needed post-merge.
Usually it is for demonstration/illustration purposes. Once the code flow reaches the function, you'll get the message printed. Sometimes it is important to understand the sequence of calling the functions or just the fact that the function has been called.
I'm just starting to learn Python 3.9 as my first language. I have been fighting with this error for a while now, and I can't figure out what the issue is.
Here's what I'm working on:
def eval_express(eqstring[0], eqstring[1], eqstring[2]):
eqstring[0], eqstring[2] = float(eqstring[0]), float(eqstring[2])
return opdict[eqstring[1]](eqstring[0], eqstring[2])
I'm receiving an error that the "(" after eval_express is not closed, but as far as I can tell it is. At first, I thought it was just a glitch, but despite numerous attempts to rewrite it, increase/decrease the number of arguments, etc. it persisted. The error cropped up after I modified the arguments from variables to list items, but I don't see why that would affect it. Can anyone provide some clarification on what the program's getting hung up on?
Thank you for your help!
You are using square brackets inside the function parameters, which is not valid. Valid code would be:
def eval_express(eqstring0, eqstring1, eqstring2):
eqstring0, eqstring2 = float(eqstring0), float(eqstring2)
return opdict[eqstring1](eqstring0, eqstring2)
although you should probably use more descriptive parameter names.
You can't use parameter[] notation when entering a parameter to a function. Instead just use parameter, or you will have to do something like.
def eval_express(eqstring):
eqstring[0], eqstring[2] = float(eqstring[0]), float(eqstring[2])
return opdict[eqstring[1]](eqstring[0], eqstring[2])
Now you have to pass an array as the function parameter.
I want to achieve that calling foo(2*3) prints 2*3.
The reason is that I try to create a test framework for querying data files and I want to print the query statement with the assertion result.
I tried to get it work via the inspect module but I could not make it work.
In general, the answer is "no", since the value received by the function is the result of the expression 2*3, not the expression itself. However, in Python almost anything is possible if you really want it ;-)
For simple cases you could achieve this using the inspect module like this:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import inspect
def foo(x):
context = inspect.stack()[1].code_context[0]
print(context)
def main():
foo(2 * 3)
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
This will print:
foo(2 * 3)
It would be trivial to get the part 2 * 3 from this string using a regular expression. However, if the function call is not on a single line, or if the line contains multiple statements, this simple trick will not work properly. It might be possible with more advanced coding, but I guess your use case is to simply print the expression in a test report or something like that? If so, this solution might be just good enough.
Because the expression is evaluated before it is passed to the function, it is not possible to print out the un-evaluated expression.
However, there is a possible workaround. You can instead pass the expression as a string and evaluate it inside the function using eval(). As a simple example:
def foo(expr):
print(expr)
return(eval(expr))
Please note however that using eval is considered bad practice.
A better solution is to simply pass a string as well as the expression, such as foo(2*3, "2*3").
I'm learning Python and, so far, I absolutely love it. Everything about it.
I just have one question about a seeming inconsistency in function returns, and I'm interested in learning the logic behind the rule.
If I'm returning a literal or variable in a function return, no parentheses are needed:
def fun_with_functions(a, b):
total = a + b
return total
However, when I'm returning the result of another function call, the function is wrapped around a set of parentheses. To wit:
def lets_have_fun():
return(fun_with_functions(42, 9000))
This is, at least, the way I've been taught, using the A Smarter Way to Learn Python book. I came across this discrepancy and it was given without an explanation. You can see the online exercise here (skip to Exercize 10).
Can someone explain to me why this is necessary? Is it even necessary in the first place? And are there other similar variations in parenthetical syntax that I should be aware of?
Edit: I've rephrased the title of my question to reflect the responses. Returning a result within parentheses is not mandatory, as I originally thought, but it is generally considered best practice, as I have now learned.
It's not necessary. The parentheses are used for several reason, one reason it's for code style:
example = some_really_long_function_name() or another_really_function_name()
so you can use:
example = (some_really_long_function_name()
or
another_really_function_name())
Another use it's like in maths, to force evaluation precede. So you want to ensure the excute between parenthese before. I imagine that the functions return the result of another one, it's just best practice to ensure the execution of the first one but it's no necessary.
I don't think it is mandatory. Tried in both python2 and python3, and a without function defined without parentheses in lets_have_fun() return clause works just fine. So as jack6e says, it's just a preference.
if you
return ("something,) # , is important, the ( ) are optional, thx #roganjosh
you are returning a tuple.
If you are returning
return someFunction(4,9)
or
return (someFunction(4,9))
makes no difference. To test, use:
def f(i,g):
return i * g
def r():
return f(4,6)
def q():
return (f(4,6))
print (type(r()))
print (type(q()))
Output:
<type 'int'>
<type 'int'>
I now (or so I have read) that it is not possible in Python 2.x, and can't find it for Python 3 either, but maybe I don't know how to search for it...
It easier to explain it with a simple Python example:
for i in range(11):
one_turtle.penup()
one_turtle.forward(50)
one_turtle.down()
one_turtle.forward(8)
one_turtle.up()
one_turtle.forward(8)
one_turtle.stamp()
one_turtle.forward(-66)
one_turtle.left(360/12)
I'd like to avoid repeating "one_turtle" the same way you can do in VBA, which it would result in something similar to this:
For i = 1 To 11
With one_turtle.penup()
.forward(50)
.down()
.forward(8)
.up()
.forward(8)
.stamp()
.forward(-66)
.left(360/12)
The code resulting from the With keyword is much clearer and easy to write and read (it'll need an End With and a Next lines but I wanted to focus the discussion). One of the main reasons I have decided to learn Python is because it is said to be very neat and "zen-like" to program. Is it really not possible to do this?
In your definition of all these member-methods, simply return self.
eg. Change definition of penup() like this:
def penup(self):
# Your logic
return self
The ideal solution is I think already posted, returning self is simply the cleanest way. However if you're not able to edit the turtle object or whatever, you can create an alias:
forward = one_turtle.forward
... some code ...
forward()
Now the function forward just applies forward to one_turtle, simple example
s = "abc"
x = s.upper
print(x()) # prints "ABC"