How can i print my output from this function and each boolean to be on new line.
def is_palindrome(n):
return str(n) == str(n)[::-1]
numbers = list(map(int, input().split(', ')))
palindrome_status = [is_palindrome(n) for n in numbers]
print(palindrome_status)
Output:
[False, True, False, True]
Expecting:
False
True
False
True
The simplest would be print it one by one:
[print(is_palindrome(n)) for n in numbers]
BUT
List comprehesion shouldn't be used with side effect functions, to have it clean you should use normal loop:
for n in numbers:
print(is_palindrome(n))
Convert boolean to string, then insert newlines.
print("\n".join(map(str, palindrome_status)))
There are two options:
Use a for loop to iterate over the elements and then print
for val in palindrome_status:
print(val)
Use the print separator for newlines while unpacking the list
print(*palindrome_status, sep='\n')
This works with Lua sometimes if you do
print( "string1" ..
"string2")
using "..", it tells it to continue as one function, and it will continue with this until it's closed or ended
I'm not a python guy so, Sorry if it doesnt work in python :C
I am a beginning in Python.
I have a function that checks if it is a vowel.
def vowel(x):
if(x=='a' or x=='e' or x=='i' or x=='o' or x=='u'):
return True;
else:
return False;
And a function that tries to convert the string to a robber's language by using the vowel function above. (The algorithm for conversion is to double every consonant and place an "o" in between).
def robber(text):
s=""
for i,c in enumerate(text):
if vowel(c)==False:
s=s.join([c,'o',c])
return s;
When I try to run it by passing robber("asdf") into the function, I get a blank line and "Process finished with exit code 0"
I suspect that there might be multiple errors, but the program is syntactically correct. Could you help me with this?
You should append to s instead of assigning and also appending the c in case it is no vowel:
def robber(text):
s=""
for i,c in enumerate(text):
if vowel(c)==False:
s += ''.join([c,'o',c])
else:
s += c
return s
Furthermore some additional remarks:
it is more Pythonic to use not instead of == False;
you do not need to use enumerate(..) since i is never used;
you do not need to return True and return False if the test succeeds/fails, simply return the condition; and
you can rewrite both the vowel(..) and robber(..) function more elegantly.
So putting it together:
def vowel(x):
return x.lower() in ('a','e','i','o','u')
and:
def robber(text):
return ''.join([c if vowel(c) else ''.join((c,'o',c)) for c in text])
If you want to avoid all those append/overwrite errors (and get a much better performance/avoid string concatenation), better start writing those using list comprehension:
text = "asdf"
new_text = "".join([c if c in "aeiou" else "{0}o{0}".format(c) for c in text])
print(new_text)
result:
asosdodfof
the new text is a joined list (creates a string) of a list comprehension built using a ternary expression: leave the letter alone if vowel, else create the pattern.
Firstly, your problem
On the line s=s.join([c,'o',c]), you are actually replacing the contents of s every time. I think what you do want to do is to append it to s, so I would use s += "".join([c, 'o', c])
Also the use of join is wrong - the string before the join comes between every two elements in the given list, not before the first.
So, as I said, the correct form to do that should be:
s += "".join([c, 'o', c])
Disclaimer : Not tested.
Code readability
As you stated that you are a beginner, let me give you some tips about your coding style (Python's coding style is very unique).
1
Instead of doing x=='a' or x=='e' or x=='i' or x=='o' or x=='u', you do:
`if x in 'aeiou':`
Much more understandable and reads better.
2
Doing:
if ...:
return True
else
Return False
Is very clumsy. Try:
return ...
And in your case:
return x in 'aeiuo'
The condition is already a boolean value (True or False) - no need to reevaluate it ;)
So I'm trying to learn Python using codecademy but I'm stuck. It's asking me to define a function that takes a list as an argument. This is the code I have:
# Write your function below!
def fizz_count(*x):
count = 0
for x in fizz_count:
if x == "fizz":
count += 1
return count
It's probably something stupid I've done wrong, but it keeps telling me to make sure the function only takes one parameter, "x". def fizz_count(x): doesn't work either though. What am I supposed to do here?
Edit: Thanks for the help everyone, I see what I was doing wrong now.
There are a handful of problems here:
You're trying to iterate over fizz_count. But fizz_count is your function. x is your passed-in argument. So it should be for x in x: (but see #3).
You're accepting one argument with *x. The * causes x to be a tuple of all arguments. If you only pass one, a list, then the list is x[0] and items of the list are x[0][0], x[0][1] and so on. Easier to just accept x.
You're using your argument, x, as the placeholder for items in your list when you iterate over it, which means after the loop, x no longer refers to the passed-in list, but to the last item of it. This would actually work in this case because you don't use x afterward, but for clarity it's better to use a different variable name.
Some of your variable names could be more descriptive.
Putting these together we get something like this:
def fizz_count(sequence):
count = 0
for item in sequence:
if item == "fizz":
count += 1
return count
I assume you're taking the long way 'round for learning porpoises, which don't swim so fast. A better way to write this might be:
def fizz_count(sequence):
return sum(item == "fizz" for item in sequence)
But in fact list has a count() method, as does tuple, so if you know for sure that your argument is a list or tuple (and not some other kind of sequence), you can just do:
def fizz_count(sequence):
return sequence.count("fizz")
In fact, that's so simple, you hardly need to write a function for it!
when you pass *x to a function, then x is a list. Do either
def function(x):
# x is a variable
...
function('foo') # pass a single variable
funciton(['foo', 'bar']) # pass a list, explicitly
or
def function(*args):
# args is a list of unspecified size
...
function('foo') # x is list of 1 element
function('foo', 'bar') # x is list with two elements
Your function isn't taking a list as an argument. *x expands to consume your passed arguments, so your function is expecting to be called like this:
f(1, 2, 3)
Not like this:
f([1, 2, 3])
Notice the lack of a list object in your first example. Get rid of the *, as you don't need it:
# Write your function below!
def fizz_count(lst):
count = 0
for elem in lst:
if elem == "fizz":
count += 1
return count
You can also just use list.count:
# Write your function below!
def fizz_count(lst):
return lst.count('fizz')
It must be a typo. You're trying to iterate over the function name.
try this:
def fizz_count(x):
counter = 0
for element in x:
if element == "fizz":
counter += 1
return counter
Try this:
# Write your function below!
def fizz_count(x):
count = 0
for i in x:
if i == "fizz":
count += 1
return count
Sample :
>>> fizz_count(['test','fizz','buzz'])
1
for i in x: will iterate through every elements of list x. Suggest you to read more here.
I have lots of small pieces of code that look like:
for it in <iterable>:
if <condition>:
return True/False
Is there a way I can rewrite this piece of code with a lambda expression ? I know I can factor it out in a small method/function, but I am looking for some lambda thing if it can be done.
Use the built-in any function.
e.g.
any(<condition> for it in <iterable>) # return True on <condition>
In addition to what everyone else has said, for the reverse case:
for it in <iterable>:
if <condition>:
return False
return True
use all():
b = all(<condition> for it in <iterable>)
if you want to check the condition for every item of iterable you can use
listcomprehensions to to this
b = [ x == whatever for x in a ]
you can combine this with any if you only need to know if there is one element
that evals to true for your condition
b = any(x == whatever for x in a)
Here is a simple example which returns True if any of the objects in it is equal to 2. by using the map function:
any(map(lambda x: x==2, it))
Change the lambda expression to reflect your condition.
Another nice way is to use any with a list comprehension:
any([True for x in it if x==2])
or alternatively, a generator expression:
any(x==2 for x in it)
I'm calling a bunch of methods that return a list. The list may be empty. If the list is non-empty, I want to return the first item; otherwise, I want to return None. This code works:
def main():
my_list = get_list()
if len(my_list) > 0:
return my_list[0]
return None
but it seems to me that there should be a simple one-line idiom for doing this. Is there?
Python 2.6+
next(iter(your_list), None)
If your_list can be None:
next(iter(your_list or []), None)
Python 2.4
def get_first(iterable, default=None):
if iterable:
for item in iterable:
return item
return default
Example:
x = get_first(get_first_list())
if x:
...
y = get_first(get_second_list())
if y:
...
Another option is to inline the above function:
for x in get_first_list() or []:
# process x
break # process at most one item
for y in get_second_list() or []:
# process y
break
To avoid break you could write:
for x in yield_first(get_first_list()):
x # process x
for y in yield_first(get_second_list()):
y # process y
Where:
def yield_first(iterable):
for item in iterable or []:
yield item
return
The best way is this:
a = get_list()
return a[0] if a else None
You could also do it in one line, but it's much harder for the programmer to read:
return (get_list()[:1] or [None])[0]
(get_list() or [None])[0]
That should work.
BTW I didn't use the variable list, because that overwrites the builtin list() function.
The most python idiomatic way is to use the next() on a iterator since list is iterable. just like what #J.F.Sebastian put in the comment on Dec 13, 2011.
next(iter(the_list), None) This returns None if the_list is empty. see next() Python 2.6+
or if you know for sure the_list is not empty:
iter(the_list).next() see iterator.next() Python 2.2+
If you find yourself trying to pluck the first thing (or None) from a list comprehension you can switch to a generator to do it like:
next((x for x in blah if cond), None)
Pro: works if blah isn't indexable Con: it's unfamiliar syntax. It's useful while hacking around and filtering stuff in ipython though.
The OP's solution is nearly there, there are just a few things to make it more Pythonic.
For one, there's no need to get the length of the list. Empty lists in Python evaluate to False in an if check. Just simply say
if list:
Additionally, it's a very Bad Idea to assign to variables that overlap with reserved words. "list" is a reserved word in Python.
So let's change that to
some_list = get_list()
if some_list:
A really important point that a lot of solutions here miss is that all Python functions/methods return None by default. Try the following below.
def does_nothing():
pass
foo = does_nothing()
print foo
Unless you need to return None to terminate a function early, it's unnecessary to explicitly return None. Quite succinctly, just return the first entry, should it exist.
some_list = get_list()
if some_list:
return list[0]
And finally, perhaps this was implied, but just to be explicit (because explicit is better than implicit), you should not have your function get the list from another function; just pass it in as a parameter. So, the final result would be
def get_first_item(some_list):
if some_list:
return list[0]
my_list = get_list()
first_item = get_first_item(my_list)
As I said, the OP was nearly there, and just a few touches give it the Python flavor you're looking for.
Python idiom to return first item or None?
The most Pythonic approach is what the most upvoted answer demonstrated, and it was the first thing to come to my mind when I read the question. Here's how to use it, first if the possibly empty list is passed into a function:
def get_first(l):
return l[0] if l else None
And if the list is returned from a get_list function:
l = get_list()
return l[0] if l else None
New in Python 3.8, Assignment Expressions
Assignment expressions use the in-place assignment operator (informally called the walrus operator), :=, new in Python 3.8, allows us to do the check and assignment in-place, allowing the one-liner:
return l[0] if (l := get_list()) else None
As a long-time Python user, this feels like we're trying to do too much on one line - I feel it would be better style to do the presumptively equally performant:
if l := get_list():
return l[0]
return None
In support of this formulation is Tim Peter's essay in the PEP proposing this change to the language. He didn't address the first formulation, but based on the other formulations he did like, I don't think he would mind.
Other ways demonstrated to do this here, with explanations
for
When I began trying to think of clever ways to do this, this is the second thing I thought of:
for item in get_list():
return item
This presumes the function ends here, implicitly returning None if get_list returns an empty list. The below explicit code is exactly equivalent:
for item in get_list():
return item
return None
if some_list
The following was also proposed (I corrected the incorrect variable name) which also uses the implicit None. This would be preferable to the above, as it uses the logical check instead of an iteration that may not happen. This should be easier to understand immediately what is happening. But if we're writing for readability and maintainability, we should also add the explicit return None at the end:
some_list = get_list()
if some_list:
return some_list[0]
slice or [None] and select zeroth index
This one is also in the most up-voted answer:
return (get_list()[:1] or [None])[0]
The slice is unnecessary, and creates an extra one-item list in memory. The following should be more performant. To explain, or returns the second element if the first is False in a boolean context, so if get_list returns an empty list, the expression contained in the parentheses will return a list with 'None', which will then be accessed by the 0 index:
return (get_list() or [None])[0]
The next one uses the fact that and returns the second item if the first is True in a boolean context, and since it references my_list twice, it is no better than the ternary expression (and technically not a one-liner):
my_list = get_list()
return (my_list and my_list[0]) or None
next
Then we have the following clever use of the builtin next and iter
return next(iter(get_list()), None)
To explain, iter returns an iterator with a .next method. (.__next__ in Python 3.) Then the builtin next calls that .next method, and if the iterator is exhausted, returns the default we give, None.
redundant ternary expression (a if b else c) and circling back
The below was proposed, but the inverse would be preferable, as logic is usually better understood in the positive instead of the negative. Since get_list is called twice, unless the result is memoized in some way, this would perform poorly:
return None if not get_list() else get_list()[0]
The better inverse:
return get_list()[0] if get_list() else None
Even better, use a local variable so that get_list is only called one time, and you have the recommended Pythonic solution first discussed:
l = get_list()
return l[0] if l else None
Regarding idioms, there is an itertools recipe called nth.
From itertools recipes:
def nth(iterable, n, default=None):
"Returns the nth item or a default value"
return next(islice(iterable, n, None), default)
If you want one-liners, consider installing a library that implements this recipe for you, e.g. more_itertools:
import more_itertools as mit
mit.nth([3, 2, 1], 0)
# 3
mit.nth([], 0) # default is `None`
# None
Another tool is available that only returns the first item, called more_itertools.first.
mit.first([3, 2, 1])
# 3
mit.first([], default=None)
# None
These itertools scale generically for any iterable, not only for lists.
for item in get_list():
return item
Frankly speaking, I do not think there is a better idiom: your is clear and terse - no need for anything "better". Maybe, but this is really a matter of taste, you could change if len(list) > 0: with if list: - an empty list will always evaluate to False.
On a related note, Python is not Perl (no pun intended!), you do not have to get the coolest code possible.
Actually, the worst code I have seen in Python, was also very cool :-) and completely unmaintainable.
By the way, most of the solution I have seen here do not take into consideration when list[0] evaluates to False (e.g. empty string, or zero) - in this case, they all return None and not the correct element.
my_list[0] if len(my_list) else None
Not sure how pythonic this is but until there is a first function in the library I include this in the source:
first = lambda l, default=None: next(iter(l or []), default)
It's just one line (conforms to black) and avoids dependencies.
Out of curiosity, I ran timings on two of the solutions. The solution which uses a return statement to prematurely end a for loop is slightly more costly on my machine with Python 2.5.1, I suspect this has to do with setting up the iterable.
import random
import timeit
def index_first_item(some_list):
if some_list:
return some_list[0]
def return_first_item(some_list):
for item in some_list:
return item
empty_lists = []
for i in range(10000):
empty_lists.append([])
assert empty_lists[0] is not empty_lists[1]
full_lists = []
for i in range(10000):
full_lists.append(list([random.random() for i in range(10)]))
mixed_lists = empty_lists[:50000] + full_lists[:50000]
random.shuffle(mixed_lists)
if __name__ == '__main__':
ENV = 'import firstitem'
test_data = ('empty_lists', 'full_lists', 'mixed_lists')
funcs = ('index_first_item', 'return_first_item')
for data in test_data:
print "%s:" % data
for func in funcs:
t = timeit.Timer('firstitem.%s(firstitem.%s)' % (
func, data), ENV)
times = t.repeat()
avg_time = sum(times) / len(times)
print " %s:" % func
for time in times:
print " %f seconds" % time
print " %f seconds avg." % avg_time
These are the timings I got:
empty_lists:
index_first_item:
0.748353 seconds
0.741086 seconds
0.741191 seconds
0.743543 seconds avg.
return_first_item:
0.785511 seconds
0.822178 seconds
0.782846 seconds
0.796845 seconds avg.
full_lists:
index_first_item:
0.762618 seconds
0.788040 seconds
0.786849 seconds
0.779169 seconds avg.
return_first_item:
0.802735 seconds
0.878706 seconds
0.808781 seconds
0.830074 seconds avg.
mixed_lists:
index_first_item:
0.791129 seconds
0.743526 seconds
0.744441 seconds
0.759699 seconds avg.
return_first_item:
0.784801 seconds
0.785146 seconds
0.840193 seconds
0.803380 seconds avg.
try:
return a[0]
except IndexError:
return None
def head(iterable):
try:
return iter(iterable).next()
except StopIteration:
return None
print head(xrange(42, 1000) # 42
print head([]) # None
BTW: I'd rework your general program flow into something like this:
lists = [
["first", "list"],
["second", "list"],
["third", "list"]
]
def do_something(element):
if not element:
return
else:
# do something
pass
for li in lists:
do_something(head(li))
(Avoiding repetition whenever possible)
Borrowing more_itertools.first_true code yields something decently readable:
def first_true(iterable, default=None, pred=None):
return next(filter(pred, iterable), default)
def get_first_non_default(items_list, default=None):
return first_true(items_list, default, pred=lambda x: x!=default)
Following code covers several scenarios by using lambda:
l1 = [1,2,3]
l2 = []
l3 = None
first_elem = lambda x: x[0] if x else None
print(first_elem(l1))
print(first_elem(l2))
print(first_elem(l3))
Using the and-or trick:
a = get_list()
return a and a[0] or None
Probably not the fastest solution, but nobody mentioned this option:
dict(enumerate(get_list())).get(0)
if get_list() can return None you can use:
dict(enumerate(get_list() or [])).get(0)
Advantages:
-one line
-you just call get_list() once
-easy to understand
My use case was only to set the value of a local variable.
Personally I found the try and except style cleaner to read
items = [10, 20]
try: first_item = items[0]
except IndexError: first_item = None
print first_item
than slicing a list.
items = [10, 20]
first_item = (items[:1] or [None, ])[0]
print first_item
How about this:
(my_list and my_list[0]) or None
Note: This should work fine for lists of objects but it might return incorrect answer in case of number or string list per the comments below.
You could use Extract Method. In other words extract that code into a method which you'd then call.
I wouldn't try to compress it much more, the one liners seem harder to read than the verbose version. And if you use Extract Method, it's a one liner ;)
Several people have suggested doing something like this:
list = get_list()
return list and list[0] or None
That works in many cases, but it will only work if list[0] is not equal to 0, False, or an empty string. If list[0] is 0, False, or an empty string, the method will incorrectly return None.
I've created this bug in my own code one too many times !
isn't the idiomatic python equivalent to C-style ternary operators
cond and true_expr or false_expr
ie.
list = get_list()
return list and list[0] or None
if mylist != []:
print(mylist[0])
else:
print(None)