We Keep Coding

Intermediate results from recursion

I have a problem where I need to produce something which is naturally computed recursively, but where I also need to be able to interrogate the intermediate steps in the recursion if needed.
I know I can do this by passing and mutating a list or similar structure. However, this looks ugly to me and I'm sure there must be a neater way, e.g. using generators. What I would ideally love to be able to do is something like:
intermediate_results = [f(x) for x in range(T)]
final_result = intermediate_results[T-1]
in an efficient way. While my solution is not performance critical, I can't justify the massive amount of redundant effort in that first line. It looks to me like a generator would be perfect for this except for the fact that f is fundamentally much more suited to recursion in my case (which at least in my mind is the complete opposite of a generator, but maybe I'm just not thinking far enough outside of the box).
Is there a neat Pythonic way of doing something like this that I just don't know about, or do I just need to just capitulate and pollute my function f by passing it an intermediate_results list which I then mutate as a side-effect?

I have a generic solution for you using a decorator. We create a Memoize class which stores the results of previous times the function is executed (including in recursive calls). If the arguments given have already been seen, the cached versions are used to quickly lookup the result.
The custom class has the benefit over an lru_cache in that you can see the results.
from functools import wraps
class Memoize:
def __init__(self):
self.store = {}
def save(self, fun):
#wraps(fun)
def wrapper(*args):
if args not in self.store:
self.store[args] = fun(*args)
return self.store[args]
return wrapper
m = Memoize()
#m.save
def fibo(n):
if n <= 0: return 0
elif n == 1: return 1
else: return fibo(n-1) + fibo(n-2)
Then after running different things you can see what the cache contains. When you run future function calls, m.store will be used as a lookup so calculation doesn't need to be redone.
>>> f(8)
21
>>> m.store
{(1,): 1,
(0,): 0,
(2,): 1,
(3,): 2,
(4,): 3,
(5,): 5,
(6,): 8,
(7,): 13,
(8,): 21}
You could modify the save function to use the name of the function and the args as the key, so that multiple function results can be stored in the same Memoize class.

You can use your existing solution that makes many "redundant" calls to f, but employ the use of function caching to save the results to previous calls to f.
In other words, when f(x1) is called, it's input arguments and corresponding return values are saved, and the next time it is called, the result is simply pulled from the cache
see functools.lru_cache for the standard library solution to this
ie:
from functools import lru_cache
#lru_cache
intermediate_results = [f(x) for x in range(T)]
final_result = intermediate_results[T-1]
Note, however, f must be a pure function (no side-effects, 1-to-1 mapping) for this to work properly

Having considered your comments, I'll now try to give another perspective on the problem.
So, let's consider a concrete example:
def f(x):
a = 2
return g(x) + a if x != 0 else 0
def g(x):
b = 1
return h(x) - b
def h(x):
c = 1/2
return f(x-1)*(1+c)
I
First of all, it should be mentioned that (in our particular case) the algorithm has form of: f(x) = p(f(x - 1)) for some p. It follows that f(x) = p^x(f(0)) = p^x(0). That means we should just apply p to 0 x times to get the desired result, which can be done in an iterative process, so this can be written without recursion. Though I believe that your real case is much harder. Moreover, it would be too boring and uninformative to stop here)
II
Generally speaking, we can divide all possible solutions into two groups: the ones that require refactoring (i.e. rewriting functions f, g, h) and the ones that do not. I have little to offer from the latter one (and I don't think anyone can). Consider the following, however:
def fk(x, k):
a = 2
return k(gk(x, k) + a if x != 0 else 0)
def gk(x, k):
b = 1
return k(hk(x, k) - b)
def hk(x, k):
c = 1/2
return k(fk(x-1, k)*(1+c))
def printret(x):
print(x)
return x
f(4, printret) # see what happens
Inspired by continuation-passing style, but that's totally not it.
What's the point? It's something between your idea of passing a list to write down all the computations and memoizing. This k carries additional behavior with it, such as printing or writing to list (you can make a function that writes to some list, why not?). But if you look carefully you'll see that it lefts inner code of these functions practically untouched (only input and output to function are affected), so one can produce a decorator associated with a function like printret that does essentially the same thing for f, g, h.
Pros: no need to modify code, much more flexible than passing a list, no additional work (like in memoizing).
Cons: Impure (printing or modifying sth), not so flexible as we would like.
III
Now let's see how modifying function bodies can help. Don't be afraid of what's written below, take your time and play with that thing a little.
class Logger:
def __init__(self, lst, cur_val):
self.lst = lst
self.cur_val = cur_val
def bind(self, f):
res = f(self.cur_val)
return Logger([self.cur_val] + res.lst + self.lst, res.cur_val)
def __repr__(self):
return "Logger( " + repr({'value' : self.cur_val,'lst' : self.lst}) + " )"
def unit(x):
return Logger([], x)
# you can also play with lala
def lala(x):
if x <= 0:
return unit(1)
else:
return lala(x - 1).bind(lambda y: unit(2*y))
def f(x):
a = 2
if x == 0:
return unit(0)
else:
return g(x).bind(lambda y: unit(y + a))
def g(x):
b = 1
return h(x).bind(lambda y: unit(y - b))
def h(x):
c = 1/2
return f(x-1).bind(lambda y: unit(y*(1+c)))
f(4) # see for yourself
Logger is called a monad. I'm not very familiar with this concept myself, but I guess I'm doing everything right) f, g, h are functions that take a number and return a Logger instance. Logger's bind takes in a function (like f) and returns Logger with new value (computed by f) and updated 'logs'. The key point - as I see it - is the ability to do whatever we want with collected functions in the order the resulting value was calculated.
Afterword
I'm not at all some kind of 'guru' of functional programming, I believe I'm missing a lot of things here. But what I've understood is that functional programming is about inversing the flow of the program. That's why, for instance, I totally agree with your opinion about generators being opposed to functional programming. When we use generator gen in, say, function func, we yield values one by one to func and func does sth with them in e.g. a loop. The functional approach would be to make gen a function taking func as a parameter and make func perform computations on 'yielded' values. It's like gen and func exchanged their places. So the flow is inversed! And there are plenty of other ways of inversing the flow. Monads are one of them.

itertools islice gets a generator, start value and stop value. it will give you the elements between the start value and stop value as a generator. if islice is not clear you can check the docs here https://docs.python.org/3/library/itertools.html
intermediate_result = map(f, range(T))
final_result = next(itertools.islice(intermediate_result, start=T-1, stop=T))

How to define multiple functions changing internal values?

I think my question should be more clearly understood by this short code:
fs = []
for k in range(0, 10):
def f(x):
return x + 2*k
fs.append(f)
fs[0](1)
# expecting 1 but 19(=1+2*9)
How do I instead make f return what I want? Please note that f cannot receive k as an argument.
(What I'm actually trying to do is prepare multiple constraint functions that are fed to scipy.optimize.minimize)

The typical way to fix this is to do something like:
def f(x, k=k):
return x + 2*k
For the most part, this shouldn't affect your "f cannot receive k as an argument" condition because it isn't a required argument.
A related, but different approach would be to define f out of the loop.
def f(k, x):
return x + 2*k
Then in the loop use functools.partial.
import functools
fs = []
for k in range(10):
fs.append(functools.partial(f, k))
In this approach, your function won't accept a value for k even if you try to pass one.

Basically the problem is that the variable k, in this case, continually changes as the loop iterates. This means that all things which are pointing to the variable "k" are pointing to the same value at all times.
There are a couple of ways to solve this. This is perhaps the most common.
def f(x, k=k):
# This sets k as a locally bound variable which is evaluated
# at the time the function is created.
return x + 2*k
The detriment is that this solution will allow a later function to call the newly created functions with a different value of k. This means you could call f("cat","dog") and get "catdogdog" as a return. While this is not the end of the world, it certainly isn't intended.
However, you could also do something like this:
def f_maker(k):
# Create a new function whose variable "k" does not exist in outside scope.
def f(x):
return x + 2*k
return f
fs = []
for k in range(0, 10):
fs.append(f_maker(k))
fs[0](1)

calculating current value based on previous value

i would like to perform a calculation using python, where the current value (i) of the equation is based on the previous value of the equation (i-1), which is really easy to do in a spreadsheet but i would rather learn to code it
i have noticed that there is loads of information on finding the previous value from a list, but i don't have a list i need to create it! my equation is shown below.
h=(2*b)-h[i-1]
can anyone give me tell me a method to do this ?
i tried this sort of thing, but that will not work as when i try to do the equation i'm calling a value i haven't created yet, if i set h=0 then i get an error that i am out of index range
i = 1
for i in range(1, len(b)):
h=[]
h=(2*b)-h[i-1]
x+=1

h = [b[0]]
for val in b[1:]:
h.append(2 * val - h[-1]) # As you add to h, you keep up with its tail
for large b list (brr, one-letter identifier), to avoid creating large slice
from itertools import islice # For big list it will keep code less wasteful
for val in islice(b, 1, None):
....

As pointed out by #pad, you simply need to handle the base case of receiving the first sample.
However, your equation makes no use of i other than to retrieve the previous result. It's looking more like a running filter than something which needs to maintain a list of past values (with an array which might never stop growing).
If that is the case, and you only ever want the most recent value,then you might want to go with a generator instead.
def gen():
def eqn(b):
eqn.h = 2*b - eqn.h
return eqn.h
eqn.h = 0
return eqn
And then use thus
>>> f = gen()
>>> f(2)
4
>>> f(3)
2
>>> f(2)
0
>>>
The same effect could be acheived with a true generator using yield and send.

First of, do you need all the intermediate values? That is, do you want a list h from 0 to i? Or do you just want h[i]?
If you just need the i-th value you could us recursion:
def get_h(i):
if i>0:
return (2*b) - get_h(i-1)
else:
return h_0
But be aware that this will not work for large i, as it will exceed the maximum recursion depth. (Thanks for pointing this out kdopen) In that case a simple for-loop or a generator is better.
Even better is to use a (mathematically) closed form of the equation (for your example that is possible, it might not be in other cases):
def get_h(i):
if i%2 == 0:
return h_0
else:
return (2*b)-h_0
In both cases h_0 is the initial value that you start out with.

h = []
for i in range(len(b)):
if i>0:
h.append(2*b - h[i-1])
else:
# handle i=0 case here

You are successively applying a function (equation) to the result of a previous application of that function - the process needs a seed to start it. Your result looks like this [seed, f(seed), f(f(seed)), f(f(f(seed)), ...]. This concept is function composition. You can create a generalized function that will do this for any sequence of functions, in Python functions are first class objects and can be passed around just like any other object. If you need to preserve the intermediate results use a generator.
def composition(functions, x):
""" yields f(x), f(f(x)), f(f(f(x)) ....
for each f in functions
functions is an iterable of callables taking one argument
"""
for f in functions:
x = f(x)
yield x
Your specs require a seed and a constant,
seed = 0
b = 10
The equation/function,
def f(x, b = b):
return 2*b - x
f is applied b times.
functions = [f]*b
Usage
print list(composition(functions, seed))
If the intermediate results are not needed composition can be redefined as
def composition(functions, x):
""" Returns f(x), g(f(x)), h(g(f(x)) ....
for each function in functions
functions is an iterable of callables taking one argument
"""
for f in functions:
x = f(x)
return x
print composition(functions, seed)
Or more generally, with no limitations on call signature:
def compose(funcs):
'''Return a callable composed of successive application of functions
funcs is an iterable producing callables
for [f, g, h] returns f(g(h(*args, **kwargs)))
'''
def outer(f, g):
def inner(*args, **kwargs):
return f(g(*args, **kwargs))
return inner
return reduce(outer, funcs)
def plus2(x):
return x + 2
def times2(x):
return x * 2
def mod16(x):
return x % 16
funcs = (mod16, plus2, times2)
eq = compose(funcs) # mod16(plus2(times2(x)))
print eq(15)
While the process definition appears to be recursive, I resisted the temptation so I could stay out of maximum recursion depth hades.
I got curious, searched SO for function composition and, of course, there are numerous relavent Q&A's.

python expression that evaluates to True n times

I have a function
def f():
while True:
blah
I want to alter f in such a way that the caller could control the number of times the while loop in f runs, without altering much of the code in f (specially not adding a counter in f). Something like
def f(num_executions = True):
while num_executions:
blah()
f() will run an infinite loop
but f(an_expression_that_evaluates_to_true_n_times) will run the while loop n times.
What could such an expression be?
UPDATE:
I know, there are plenty of way to control how many times a loop will run, but the real question here is -
Can an expression in python evaluate to True for configurable number of times?
Some ideas I am toying with
-making an expression out of list = list[:-1]
-modifying default parameters of a function within a function

No need for a while-loop. Use a for-loop:
>>> def f(n):
... for _ in range(n):
... dostuff()
_ is used as a variable name in a for loop normally to be a placeholder. This loop loops through n amount of times. So f(5) would loop five times.

While I agree with the others that this is a bad idea, it is entirely (and easily) possible:
class BoolChange:
def __init__(self):
self.count = 0
def __bool__(self):
self.count += 1
return self.count <= 5
x = BoolChange()
while x:
print("Running")
This outputs Running five times, then exits.
The main reason this is a bad idea is that it means checking the state of the object modifies it, which is weird behaviour people won't expect. I can't imagine a good use case for this.

You can't do exactly what you describe. What is passed in python is not an expression, but a value. An object. An Immutable object in general evaluate to either True or to False. It will not change during the loop. Mutable object can change its truth value, but you can't make arbitrary object change during a general loop (which does not touch it in any way). In general, as have been said here, you really need to use for statement, or pass in a callable object (say, a function):
def f(is_true = lambda x : True):
while is_true():
blah()
Note that the reason that the callable solution is acceptable, while the "hiding in boolean" #Lattyware demonstrated is not, is that the additional coputation here is explicit - the () tells the reader that almost anything can happen here, depending on the object passed, and you don't need to know that the __bool__ method in this object is silently called and is expected to have side effect.

def f(c=-1):
while c:
print 'blah'
if c > 0: c -= 1

How about using a generator as a coroutine?
def blah():
print 'hi'
def f():
while True:
blah()
yield
x = f()
next(x) # "hi"
The generator here isn't be used for what it yields, but you get to control how many times it blahs externally, because it yields control ever time it blahs.
for i in range(3):
next(x) # blah blah blah

This will also work -
def foo(n=[1,2,3]):
foo.func_defaults = tuple([foo.func_defaults[0][:-1]],)
return n
while foo():
blah()

Can I express this as a generator / coroutine?

Suppose I have the following class:
class MyGen(object):
def next(self):
return X()
def send(self, x):
return f(x)
Is it possible to express it as a single function, using the yield keyword? Suppose I have g = MyGen(). Note that g.next() shouldn't call f(), and g.send(x) shouldn't call X(), but f() and X() could share some code.

This code will be almost equivalent:
def my_gen(x=None):
while True:
if x is None:
x = yield X()
else:
x = yield f(x)
One difference is that you can't send a value (other than None) to a generator before calling next() for the first time. Another difference is that sending None won't trigger calling f(), since the generator can't distinguish send(None) and next().

Sven's formulation is exactly the way to go, I just wanted to add that if you want to know more about generators, coroutines and such in Python, this site is the place to go.