We Keep Coding

The following code is gives the output as i = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 for some reason. Can anyone explain how this is happening? [duplicate]

Let's say we have a Python dictionary d, and we're iterating over it like so:
for k, v in d.iteritems():
del d[f(k)] # remove some item
d[g(k)] = v # add a new item
(f and g are just some black-box transformations.)
In other words, we try to add/remove items to d while iterating over it using iteritems.
Is this well defined? Could you provide some references to support your answer?
See also How to avoid "RuntimeError: dictionary changed size during iteration" error? for the separate question of how to avoid the problem.

Alex Martelli weighs in on this here.
It may not be safe to change the container (e.g. dict) while looping over the container.
So del d[f(k)] may not be safe. As you know, the workaround is to use d.copy().items() (to loop over an independent copy of the container) instead of d.iteritems() or d.items() (which use the same underlying container).
It is okay to modify the value at an existing index of the dict, but inserting values at new indices (e.g. d[g(k)] = v) may not work.

It is explicitly mentioned on the Python doc page (for Python 2.7) that
Using iteritems() while adding or deleting entries in the dictionary may raise a RuntimeError or fail to iterate over all entries.
Similarly for Python 3.
The same holds for iter(d), d.iterkeys() and d.itervalues(), and I'll go as far as saying that it does for for k, v in d.items(): (I can't remember exactly what for does, but I would not be surprised if the implementation called iter(d)).

You cannot do that, at least with d.iteritems(). I tried it, and Python fails with
RuntimeError: dictionary changed size during iteration
If you instead use d.items(), then it works.
In Python 3, d.items() is a view into the dictionary, like d.iteritems() in Python 2. To do this in Python 3, instead use d.copy().items(). This will similarly allow us to iterate over a copy of the dictionary in order to avoid modifying the data structure we are iterating over.

I have a large dictionary containing Numpy arrays, so the dict.copy().keys() thing suggested by #murgatroid99 was not feasible (though it worked). Instead, I just converted the keys_view to a list and it worked fine (in Python 3.4):
for item in list(dict_d.keys()):
temp = dict_d.pop(item)
dict_d['some_key'] = 1 # Some value
I realize this doesn't dive into the philosophical realm of Python's inner workings like the answers above, but it does provide a practical solution to the stated problem.

The following code shows that this is not well defined:
def f(x):
return x
def g(x):
return x+1
def h(x):
return x+10
try:
d = {1:"a", 2:"b", 3:"c"}
for k, v in d.iteritems():
del d[f(k)]
d[g(k)] = v+"x"
print d
except Exception as e:
print "Exception:", e
try:
d = {1:"a", 2:"b", 3:"c"}
for k, v in d.iteritems():
del d[f(k)]
d[h(k)] = v+"x"
print d
except Exception as e:
print "Exception:", e
The first example calls g(k), and throws an exception (dictionary changed size during iteration).
The second example calls h(k) and throws no exception, but outputs:
{21: 'axx', 22: 'bxx', 23: 'cxx'}
Which, looking at the code, seems wrong - I would have expected something like:
{11: 'ax', 12: 'bx', 13: 'cx'}

Python 3 you should just:
prefix = 'item_'
t = {'f1': 'ffw', 'f2': 'fca'}
t2 = dict()
for k,v in t.items():
t2[k] = prefix + v
or use:
t2 = t1.copy()
You should never modify original dictionary, it leads to confusion as well as potential bugs or RunTimeErrors. Unless you just append to the dictionary with new key names.

This question asks about using an iterator (and funny enough, that Python 2 .iteritems iterator is no longer supported in Python 3) to delete or add items, and it must have a No as its only right answer as you can find it in the accepted answer. Yet: most of the searchers try to find a solution, they will not care how this is done technically, be it an iterator or a recursion, and there is a solution for the problem:
You cannot loop-change a dict without using an additional (recursive) function.
This question should therefore be linked to a question that has a working solution:
How can I remove a key:value pair wherever the chosen key occurs in a deeply nested dictionary? (= "delete")
Also helpful as it shows how to change the items of a dict on the run: How can I replace a key:value pair by its value wherever the chosen key occurs in a deeply nested dictionary? (= "replace").
By the same recursive methods, you will also able to add items as the question asks for as well.
Since my request to link this question was declined, here is a copy of the solution that can delete items from a dict. See How can I remove a key:value pair wherever the chosen key occurs in a deeply nested dictionary? (= "delete") for examples / credits / notes.
import copy
def find_remove(this_dict, target_key, bln_overwrite_dict=False):
if not bln_overwrite_dict:
this_dict = copy.deepcopy(this_dict)
for key in this_dict:
# if the current value is a dict, dive into it
if isinstance(this_dict[key], dict):
if target_key in this_dict[key]:
this_dict[key].pop(target_key)
this_dict[key] = find_remove(this_dict[key], target_key)
return this_dict
dict_nested_new = find_remove(nested_dict, "sub_key2a")
The trick
The trick is to find out in advance whether a target_key is among the next children (= this_dict[key] = the values of the current dict iteration) before you reach the child level recursively. Only then you can still delete a key:value pair of the child level while iterating over a dictionary. Once you have reached the same level as the key to be deleted and then try to delete it from there, you would get the error:
RuntimeError: dictionary changed size during iteration
The recursive solution makes any change only on the next values' sub-level and therefore avoids the error.

I got the same problem and I used following procedure to solve this issue.
Python List can be iterate even if you modify during iterating over it.
so for following code it will print 1's infinitely.
for i in list:
list.append(1)
print 1
So using list and dict collaboratively you can solve this problem.
d_list=[]
d_dict = {}
for k in d_list:
if d_dict[k] is not -1:
d_dict[f(k)] = -1 # rather than deleting it mark it with -1 or other value to specify that it will be not considered further(deleted)
d_dict[g(k)] = v # add a new item
d_list.append(g(k))

Today I had a similar use-case, but instead of simply materializing the keys on the dictionary at the beginning of the loop, I wanted changes to the dict to affect the iteration of the dict, which was an ordered dict.
I ended up building the following routine, which can also be found in jaraco.itertools:
def _mutable_iter(dict):
"""
Iterate over items in the dict, yielding the first one, but allowing
it to be mutated during the process.
>>> d = dict(a=1)
>>> it = _mutable_iter(d)
>>> next(it)
('a', 1)
>>> d
{}
>>> d.update(b=2)
>>> list(it)
[('b', 2)]
"""
while dict:
prev_key = next(iter(dict))
yield prev_key, dict.pop(prev_key)
The docstring illustrates the usage. This function could be used in place of d.iteritems() above to have the desired effect.

Shortest way to get first item of `OrderedDict` in Python 3

What's the shortest way to get first item of OrderedDict in Python 3?
My best:
list(ordered_dict.items())[0]
Quite long and ugly.
I can think of:
next(iter(ordered_dict.items())) # Fixed, thanks Ashwini
But it's not very self-describing.
Any better suggestions?

Programming Practices for Readabililty
In general, if you feel like code is not self-describing, the usual solution is to factor it out into a well-named function:
def first(s):
'''Return the first element from an ordered collection
or an arbitrary element from an unordered collection.
Raise StopIteration if the collection is empty.
'''
return next(iter(s))
With that helper function, the subsequent code becomes very readable:
>>> extension = {'xml', 'html', 'css', 'php', 'xhmtl'}
>>> one_extension = first(extension)
Patterns for Extracting a Single Value from Collection
The usual ways to get an element from a set, dict, OrderedDict, generator, or other non-indexable collection are:
for value in some_collection:
break
and:
value = next(iter(some_collection))
The latter is nice because the next() function lets you specify a default value if collection is empty or you can choose to let it raise an exception. The next() function is also explicit that it is asking for the next item.
Alternative Approach
If you actually need indexing and slicing and other sequence behaviors (such as indexing multiple elements), it is a simple matter to convert to a list with list(some_collection) or to use [itertools.islice()][2]:
s = list(some_collection)
print(s[0], s[1])
s = list(islice(n, some_collection))
print(s)

Use popitem(last=False), but keep in mind that it removes the entry from the dictionary, i.e. is destructive.
from collections import OrderedDict
o = OrderedDict()
o['first'] = 123
o['second'] = 234
o['third'] = 345
first_item = o.popitem(last=False)
>>> ('first', 123)
For more details, have a look at the manual on collections. It also works with Python 2.x.

Subclassing and adding a method to OrderedDict would be the answer to clarity issues:
>>> o = ExtOrderedDict(('a',1), ('b', 2))
>>> o.first_item()
('a', 1)
The implementation of ExtOrderedDict:
class ExtOrderedDict(OrderedDict):
def first_item(self):
return next(iter(self.items()))

Code that's readable, leaves the OrderedDict unchanged and doesn't needlessly generate a potentially large list just to get the first item:
for item in ordered_dict.items():
return item
If ordered_dict is empty, None would be returned implicitly.
An alternate version for use inside a stretch of code:
for first in ordered_dict.items():
break # Leave the name 'first' bound to the first item
else:
raise IndexError("Empty ordered dict")
The Python 2.x code corresponding to the first example above would need to use iteritems() instead:
for item in ordered_dict.iteritems():
return item

You might want to consider using SortedDict instead of OrderedDict.
It provides SortedDict.peekitem to peek an item.
Runtime complexity: O(log(n))
>>> sd = SortedDict({'a': 1, 'b': 2, 'c': 3})
>>> sd.peekitem(0)
('a', 1)

If you need a one-liner:
ordered_dict[[*ordered_dict.keys()][0]]
It creates a list of dict keys, picks the first and use it as key to access the dictionary value.

First record:
[key for key, value in ordered_dict][0]
Last record:
[key for key, value in ordered_dict][-1]

Python: How to traverse a List[Dict{List[Dict{}]}]

I was just wondering if there is a simple way to do this. I have a particular structure that is parsed from a file and the output is a list of a dict of a list of a dict. Currently, I just have a bit of code that looks something like this:
for i in xrange(len(data)):
for j, k in data[i].iteritems():
for l in xrange(len(data[i]['data'])):
for m, n in data[i]['data'][l].iteritems():
dostuff()
I just wanted to know if there was a function that would traverse a structure and internally figure out whether each entry was a list or a dict and if it is a dict, traverse into that dict and so on. I've only been using Python for about a month or so, so I am by no means an expert or even an intermediate user of the language. Thanks in advance for the answers.
EDIT: Even if it's possible to simplify my code at all, it would help.

You never need to iterate through xrange(len(data)). You iterate either through data (for a list) or data.items() (or values()) (for a dict).
Your code should look like this:
for elem in data:
for val in elem.itervalues():
for item in val['data']:
which is quite a bit shorter.

Will, if you're looking to decend an arbitrary structure of array/hash thingies then you can create a function to do that based on the type() function.
def traverse_it(it):
if (isinstance(it, list)):
for item in it:
traverse_it(item)
elif (isinstance(it, dict)):
for key in it.keys():
traverse_it(it[key])
else:
do_something_with_real_value(it)
Note that the average object oriented guru will tell you not to do this, and instead create a class tree where one is based on an array, another on a dict and then have a single function to process each with the same function name (ie, a virtual function) and to call that within each class function. IE, if/else trees based on types are "bad". Functions that can be called on an object to deal with its contents in its own way "good".

I think this is what you're trying to do. There is no need to use xrange() to pull out the index from the list since for iterates over each value of the list. In my example below d1 is therefore a reference to the current data[i].
for d1 in data: # iterate over outer list, d1 is a dictionary
for x in d1: # iterate over keys in d1 (the x var is unused)
for d2 in d1['data']: # iterate over the list
# iterate over (key,value) pairs in inner most dict
for k,v in d2.iteritems():
dostuff()
You're also using the name l twice (intentionally or not), but beware of how the scoping works.

well, question is quite old. however, out of my curiosity, I would like to respond to your question for much better answer which I just tried.
Suppose, dictionary looks like: dict1 = { 'a':5,'b': [1,2,{'a':100,'b':100}], 'dict 2' : {'a':3,'b':5}}
Solution:
dict1 = { 'a':5,'b': [1,2,{'a':100,'b':100}], 'dict 2' : {'a':3,'b':5}}
def recurse(dict):
if type(dict) == type({}):
for key in dict:
recurse(dict[key])
elif type(dict) == type([]):
for element in dict:
if type(element) == type({}):
recurse(element)
else:
print element
else:
print dict
recurse(dict1)

Modifying a Python dict while iterating over it

Let's say we have a Python dictionary d, and we're iterating over it like so:
for k, v in d.iteritems():
del d[f(k)] # remove some item
d[g(k)] = v # add a new item
(f and g are just some black-box transformations.)
In other words, we try to add/remove items to d while iterating over it using iteritems.
Is this well defined? Could you provide some references to support your answer?
See also How to avoid "RuntimeError: dictionary changed size during iteration" error? for the separate question of how to avoid the problem.

Alex Martelli weighs in on this here.
It may not be safe to change the container (e.g. dict) while looping over the container.
So del d[f(k)] may not be safe. As you know, the workaround is to use d.copy().items() (to loop over an independent copy of the container) instead of d.iteritems() or d.items() (which use the same underlying container).
It is okay to modify the value at an existing index of the dict, but inserting values at new indices (e.g. d[g(k)] = v) may not work.

It is explicitly mentioned on the Python doc page (for Python 2.7) that
Using iteritems() while adding or deleting entries in the dictionary may raise a RuntimeError or fail to iterate over all entries.
Similarly for Python 3.
The same holds for iter(d), d.iterkeys() and d.itervalues(), and I'll go as far as saying that it does for for k, v in d.items(): (I can't remember exactly what for does, but I would not be surprised if the implementation called iter(d)).

You cannot do that, at least with d.iteritems(). I tried it, and Python fails with
RuntimeError: dictionary changed size during iteration
If you instead use d.items(), then it works.
In Python 3, d.items() is a view into the dictionary, like d.iteritems() in Python 2. To do this in Python 3, instead use d.copy().items(). This will similarly allow us to iterate over a copy of the dictionary in order to avoid modifying the data structure we are iterating over.

I have a large dictionary containing Numpy arrays, so the dict.copy().keys() thing suggested by #murgatroid99 was not feasible (though it worked). Instead, I just converted the keys_view to a list and it worked fine (in Python 3.4):
for item in list(dict_d.keys()):
temp = dict_d.pop(item)
dict_d['some_key'] = 1 # Some value
I realize this doesn't dive into the philosophical realm of Python's inner workings like the answers above, but it does provide a practical solution to the stated problem.

The following code shows that this is not well defined:
def f(x):
return x
def g(x):
return x+1
def h(x):
return x+10
try:
d = {1:"a", 2:"b", 3:"c"}
for k, v in d.iteritems():
del d[f(k)]
d[g(k)] = v+"x"
print d
except Exception as e:
print "Exception:", e
try:
d = {1:"a", 2:"b", 3:"c"}
for k, v in d.iteritems():
del d[f(k)]
d[h(k)] = v+"x"
print d
except Exception as e:
print "Exception:", e
The first example calls g(k), and throws an exception (dictionary changed size during iteration).
The second example calls h(k) and throws no exception, but outputs:
{21: 'axx', 22: 'bxx', 23: 'cxx'}
Which, looking at the code, seems wrong - I would have expected something like:
{11: 'ax', 12: 'bx', 13: 'cx'}

Python 3 you should just:
prefix = 'item_'
t = {'f1': 'ffw', 'f2': 'fca'}
t2 = dict()
for k,v in t.items():
t2[k] = prefix + v
or use:
t2 = t1.copy()
You should never modify original dictionary, it leads to confusion as well as potential bugs or RunTimeErrors. Unless you just append to the dictionary with new key names.

This question asks about using an iterator (and funny enough, that Python 2 .iteritems iterator is no longer supported in Python 3) to delete or add items, and it must have a No as its only right answer as you can find it in the accepted answer. Yet: most of the searchers try to find a solution, they will not care how this is done technically, be it an iterator or a recursion, and there is a solution for the problem:
You cannot loop-change a dict without using an additional (recursive) function.
This question should therefore be linked to a question that has a working solution:
How can I remove a key:value pair wherever the chosen key occurs in a deeply nested dictionary? (= "delete")
Also helpful as it shows how to change the items of a dict on the run: How can I replace a key:value pair by its value wherever the chosen key occurs in a deeply nested dictionary? (= "replace").
By the same recursive methods, you will also able to add items as the question asks for as well.
Since my request to link this question was declined, here is a copy of the solution that can delete items from a dict. See How can I remove a key:value pair wherever the chosen key occurs in a deeply nested dictionary? (= "delete") for examples / credits / notes.
import copy
def find_remove(this_dict, target_key, bln_overwrite_dict=False):
if not bln_overwrite_dict:
this_dict = copy.deepcopy(this_dict)
for key in this_dict:
# if the current value is a dict, dive into it
if isinstance(this_dict[key], dict):
if target_key in this_dict[key]:
this_dict[key].pop(target_key)
this_dict[key] = find_remove(this_dict[key], target_key)
return this_dict
dict_nested_new = find_remove(nested_dict, "sub_key2a")
The trick
The trick is to find out in advance whether a target_key is among the next children (= this_dict[key] = the values of the current dict iteration) before you reach the child level recursively. Only then you can still delete a key:value pair of the child level while iterating over a dictionary. Once you have reached the same level as the key to be deleted and then try to delete it from there, you would get the error:
RuntimeError: dictionary changed size during iteration
The recursive solution makes any change only on the next values' sub-level and therefore avoids the error.

I got the same problem and I used following procedure to solve this issue.
Python List can be iterate even if you modify during iterating over it.
so for following code it will print 1's infinitely.
for i in list:
list.append(1)
print 1
So using list and dict collaboratively you can solve this problem.
d_list=[]
d_dict = {}
for k in d_list:
if d_dict[k] is not -1:
d_dict[f(k)] = -1 # rather than deleting it mark it with -1 or other value to specify that it will be not considered further(deleted)
d_dict[g(k)] = v # add a new item
d_list.append(g(k))

Today I had a similar use-case, but instead of simply materializing the keys on the dictionary at the beginning of the loop, I wanted changes to the dict to affect the iteration of the dict, which was an ordered dict.
I ended up building the following routine, which can also be found in jaraco.itertools:
def _mutable_iter(dict):
"""
Iterate over items in the dict, yielding the first one, but allowing
it to be mutated during the process.
>>> d = dict(a=1)
>>> it = _mutable_iter(d)
>>> next(it)
('a', 1)
>>> d
{}
>>> d.update(b=2)
>>> list(it)
[('b', 2)]
"""
while dict:
prev_key = next(iter(dict))
yield prev_key, dict.pop(prev_key)
The docstring illustrates the usage. This function could be used in place of d.iteritems() above to have the desired effect.

Map list of tuples into a dictionary

I've got a list of tuples extracted from a table in a DB which looks like (key , foreignkey , value). There is a many to one relationship between the key and foreignkeys and I'd like to convert it into a dict indexed by the foreignkey containing the sum of all values with that foreignkey, i.e. { foreignkey , sumof( value ) }. I wrote something that's rather verbose:
myDict = {}
for item in myTupleList:
if item[1] in myDict:
myDict [ item[1] ] += item[2]
else:
myDict [ item[1] ] = item[2]
but after seeing this question's answer or these two there's got to be a more concise way of expressing what I'd like to do. And if this is a repeat, I missed it and will remove the question if you can provide the link.

Assuming all your values are ints, you could use a defaultdict to make this easier:
from collections import defaultdict
myDict = defaultdict(int)
for item in myTupleList:
myDict[item[1]] += item[2]
defaultdict is like a dictionary, except if you try to get a key that isn't there it fills in the value returned by the callable - in this case, int, which returns 0 when called with no arguments.
UPDATE: Thanks to #gnibbler for reminding me, but tuples can be unpacked in a for loop:
from collections import defaultdict
myDict = defaultdict(int)
for _, key, val in myTupleList:
myDict[key] += val
Here, the 3-item tuple gets unpacked into the variables _, key, and val. _ is a common placeholder name in Python, used to indicate that the value isn't really important. Using this, we can avoid the hairy item[1] and item[2] indexing. We can't rely on this if the tuples in myTupleList aren't all the same size, but I bet they are.
(We also avoid the situation of someone looking at the code and thinking it's broken because the writer thought arrays were 1-indexed, which is what I thought when I first read the code. I wasn't alleviated of this until I read the question. In the above loop, however, it's obvious that myTupleList is a tuple of three elements, and we just don't need the first one.)

from collections import defaultdict
myDict = defaultdict(int)
for _, key, value in myTupleList:
myDict[key] += value

Here's my (tongue in cheek) answer:
myDict = reduce(lambda d, t: (d.__setitem__(t[1], d.get(t[1], 0) + t[2]), d)[1], myTupleList, {})
It is ugly and bad, but here is how it works.
The first argument to reduce (because it isn't clear there) is lambda d, t: (d.__setitem__(t[1], d.get(t[1], 0) + t[2]), d)[1]. I will talk about this later, but for now, I'll just call it joe (no offense to any people named Joe intended). The reduce function basically works like this:
joe(joe(joe({}, myTupleList[0]), myTupleList[1]), myTupleList[2])
And that's for a three element list. As you can see, it basically uses its first argument to sort of accumulate each result into the final answer. In this case, the final answer is the dictionary you wanted.
Now for joe itself. Here is joe as a def:
def joe(myDict, tupleItem):
myDict[tupleItem[1]] = myDict.get(tupleItem[1], 0) + tupleItem[2]
return myDict
Unfortunately, no form of = or return is allowed in a Python lambda so that has to be gotten around. I get around the lack of = by calling the dicts __setitem__ function directly. I get around the lack of return in by creating a tuple with the return value of __setitem__ and the dictionary and then return the tuple element containing the dictionary. I will slowly alter joe so you can see how I accomplished this.
First, remove the =:
def joe(myDict, tupleItem):
# Using __setitem__ to avoid using '='
myDict.__setitem__(tupleItem[1], myDict.get(tupleItem[1], 0) + tupleItem[2])
return myDict
Next, make the entire expression evaluate to the value we want to return:
def joe(myDict, tupleItem):
return (myDict.__setitem__(tupleItem[1], myDict.get(tupleItem[1], 0) + tupleItem[2]),
myDict)[1]
I have run across this use-case for reduce and dict many times in my Python programming. In my opinion, dict could use a member function reduceto(keyfunc, reduce_func, iterable, default_val=None). keyfunc would take the current value from the iterable and return the key. reduce_func would take the existing value in the dictionary and the value from the iterable and return the new value for the dictionary. default_val would be what was passed into reduce_func if the dictionary was missing a key. The return value should be the dictionary itself so you could do things like:
myDict = dict().reduceto(lambda t: t[1], lambda o, t: o + t, myTupleList, 0)

Maybe not exactly readable but it should work:
fks = dict([ (v[1], True) for v in myTupleList ]).keys()
myDict = dict([ (fk, sum([ v[2] for v in myTupleList if v[1] == fk ])) for fk in fks ])
The first line finds all unique foreign keys. The second line builds your dictionary by first constructing a list of (fk, sum(all values for this fk))-pairs and turning that into a dictionary.

Look at SQLAlchemy and see if that does all the mapping you need and perhaps more