Related
I have a tuple, and a tuple of tuples.
import numpy as np
a = ("Control", "Group1")
b = (("Control", "Group1"), ("Control", "Group1", "Group2))
How can I tell that a is fundamentally different from b? Both
print(len(a))
print(np.shape(a))
print(len(np.shape(a)))
and
print(len(b))
print(np.shape(b))
print(len(np.shape(b)))
produce the same output:
2
(2,)
1
Thanks in advance again!
You cannot, because they are not fundamentally different.
What should happen for the following?
c = (("Foo", "bar"), "baz")
It’s also a tuple, and it contains both "bare" values as well as another tuple.
If you need to detect tuples which only consist of tuples, use:
if all(isinstance(element, tuple) for element in a)
If you need to detect tuples which only consist of non-tuples, use:
if not any(isinstance(element, tuple) for element in a)
Both of the above are have a time complexity of O(n) (with n being the number of elements in a), which may not be desirable depending from where your data is coming. It is however unavoidable, unless you are willing to take the risk not actually having tuples of tuples.
Depending on what you’re doing with your data, you might actually want to check for a sequence of sequences. In that case, you should use the Sequence ABC (Python 2):
import collections.abc
if all(isinstance(element, collections.abc.Sequence) for element in a)
Use the equality operator, ==:
>>> a = ("Control", "Group1")
>>> b = (("Control", "Group1"), ("Control", "Group1", "Group2"))
>>> a == b
False
If you just want a vague idea of the general structure, and the string elements won't contain parentheses, you can count the parentheses:
>>> str(a).count('(')
1
>>> str(b).count('(')
3
i am refreshing my python (2.7) and i am discovering iterators and generators.
As i understood, they are an efficient way of navigating over values without consuming too much memory.
So the following code do some kind of logical indexing on a list:
removing the values of a list L that triggers a False conditional statement represented here by the function f.
I am not satisfied with my code because I feel this code is not optimal for three reasons:
I read somewhere that it is better to use a for loop than a while loop.
However, in the usual for i in range(10), i can't modify the value of 'i' because it seems that the iteration doesn't care.
Logical indexing is pretty strong in matrix-oriented languages, and there should be a way to do the same in python (by hand granted, but maybe better than my code).
Third reason is just that i want to use generator/iterator on this example to help me understand.
Third reason is just that i want to use generator/iterator on this example to help me understand.
TL;DR : Is this code a good pythonic way to do logical indexing ?
#f string -> bool
def f(s):
return 'c' in s
L=['','a','ab','abc','abcd','abcde','abde'] #example
length=len(L)
i=0
while i < length:
if not f(L[i]): #f is a conditional statement (input string output bool)
del L[i]
length-=1 #cut and push leftwise
else:
i+=1
print 'Updated list is :', L
print length
This code has a few problems, but the main one is that you must never modify a list you're iterating over. Rather, you create a new list from the elements that match your condition. This can be done simply in a for loop:
newlist = []
for item in L:
if f(item):
newlist.append(item)
which can be shortened to a simple list comprehension:
newlist = [item for item in L if f(item)]
It looks like filter() is what you're after:
newlist = filter(lambda x: not f(x), L)
filter() filters (...) an iterable and only keeps the items for which a predicate returns True. In your case f(..) is not quite the predicate but not f(...).
Simpler:
def f(s):
return 'c' not in s
newlist = filter(f, L)
See: https://docs.python.org/2/library/functions.html#filter
Never modify a list with del, pop or other methods that mutate the length of the list while iterating over it. Read this for more information.
The "pythonic" way to filter a list is to use reassignment and either a list comprehension or the built-in filter function:
List comprehension:
>>> [item for item in L if f(item)]
['abc', 'abcd', 'abcde']
i want to use generator/iterator on this example to help me understand
The for item in L part is implicitly making use of the iterator protocol. Python lists are iterable, and iter(somelist) returns an iterator .
>>> from collections import Iterable, Iterator
>>> isinstance([], Iterable)
True
>>> isinstance([], Iterator)
False
>>> isinstance(iter([]), Iterator)
True
__iter__ is not only being called when using a traditional for-loop, but also when you use a list comprehension:
>>> class mylist(list):
... def __iter__(self):
... print('iter has been called')
... return super(mylist, self).__iter__()
...
>>> m = mylist([1,2,3])
>>> [x for x in m]
iter has been called
[1, 2, 3]
Filtering:
>>> filter(f, L)
['abc', 'abcd', 'abcde']
In Python3, use list(filter(f, L)) to get a list.
Of course, to filter a list, Python needs to iterate over it, too:
>>> filter(None, mylist())
iter has been called
[]
"The python way" to do it would be to use a generator expression:
# list comprehension
L = [l for l in L if f(l)]
# alternative generator comprehension
L = (l for l in L if f(l))
It depends on your context if a list or a generator is "better" (see e.g. this so question). Because your source data is coming from a list, there is no real benefit of using a generator here.
For simply deleting elements, especially if the original list is no longer needed, just iterate backwards:
Python 2.x:
for i in xrange(len(L) - 1, -1, -1):
if not f(L[i]):
del L[i]
Python 3.x:
for i in range(len(L) - 1, -1, -1):
if not f(L[i]):
del L[i]
By iterating from the end, the "next" index does not change after deletion and a for loop is possible. Note that you should use the xrange generator in Python 2, or the range generator in Python 3, to save memory*.
In cases where you must iterate forward, use your given solution above.
*Note that Python 2's xrange will break if there are >= 2 ** 32 - 1 elements. Python 3's range, as well as the less efficient Python 2's range do not have this limitation.
The following python tutorial says that:
List comprehension is a complete substitute for the lambda function as well as the functions map(), filter() and reduce().
http://python-course.eu/python3_list_comprehension.php
However, it does not mention an example how a list comprehension can substitute a reduce() and I can't think of an example how it should be possible.
Can please someone explain how to achieve a reduce-like functionality with list comprehension or confirm that it isn't possible?
Ideally, list comprehension is to create a new list. Quoting official documentation,
List comprehensions provide a concise way to create lists. Common applications are to make new lists where each element is the result of some operations applied to each member of another sequence or iterable, or to create a subsequence of those elements that satisfy a certain condition.
whereas reduce is used to reduce an iterable to a single value. Quoting functools.reduce,
Apply function of two arguments cumulatively to the items of sequence, from left to right, so as to reduce the sequence to a single value.
So, list comprehension cannot be used as a drop-in replacement for reduce.
I was surprised at first to find that Guido van Rossum, creator of Python, was against reduce. His reasoning was that beyond summing, multiplying, and-ing, and or-ing, using reduce yields an unreadable solution that is better suited by a function which iterates through and updates an accumulator. His article on the matter is here. So no, there isn't a list comprehension alternative to reduce, instead the "pythonic" way is to implement an accumulating function the old fashioned way:
Instead of:
out = reduce((lambda x,y: x*y),[1,2,3])
Use:
def prod(myList):
out = 1
for el in myList:
out *= el
return out
Of course nothing stops you from continuing to use reduce (python 2) or functools.reduce (python 3)
List comprehensions are supposed to return lists. If your reduce is supposed to return a list, then yes, you can replace it with a list comprehension.
But this is no obstacle to providing "reduce-like functionality". Python lists can contain any object. If you'll accept your result contained in a single-item list, then there is a [...][0] list comprehension form that can replace any reduce() whatsoever.
This should be obvious, but that form is
[x for x in [reduce(function, sequence, initial)]][0]
for some binary function and and some iterable sequence and some initial value. Or, if you want the initial from the first of the iterable,
[x for x in [reduce(function, sequence)]][0]
Arguably, the above is cheating, and also pointless, since you could just use reduce without the comprehension. So let's try it without reduce.
[stack.append(function(stack.pop(), e)) or stack[0]
for stack in ([initial],)
for e in sequence][-1]
This produces a list of all the intermediate values, and we want the last one. [-1] is just as easy as [0]. We need an accumulator to reduce, but can't use assignment statements in a comprehension, hence the stack (which is just a list), but we could have used many other data structures here. The .append() always returns None, so we use or stack[0] to put the value so far in the resulting list.
It's a little more difficult without initial,
[stack.append(function(stack.pop(), e)) or stack[0]
for it in [iter(sequence)]
for stack in [[next(it)]]
for e in it][-1]
Really, you might as well use a for statement at this point.
But this takes up memory for the list of intermediate values. For a very long sequence, that might be a problem. But we can avoid that too by using generator expressions.
Doing this is tricky, so let's start with an easier example and work up to it.
stack = [initial]
[stack.append(function(stack.pop(), e)) for e in sequence]
stack.pop() # returns the answer
It computes the answer, but also creates a useless list of Nones. We can avoid that by converting it to a generator expression inside a list comprehension.
stack = [initial]
[_ for _s in (stack.append(function(stack.pop(), e)) or ()
for e in sequence)
for _ in _s]
stack.pop()
The list comprehension exhausts the generator that updates the stack, but returns an empty list itself. This is possible because the inner loop always has zero iterations, because _s is always an empty tuple.
We can move the stack.pop() inside if the last _s has one element. It doesn't matter what that element is though. So we chain on a [None] as the final _s.
from itertools import chain
stack = [initial]
[stack.pop()
for _s in chain((stack.append(function(stack.pop(), e)) or ()
for e in sequence),
[[None]])
for _ in _s][0]
Again, we have a single-item list comprehension. We can also implement chain as a generator expression. And you've already seen how to move the stack variable inside using a single-item list.
[stack.pop()
for stack in [[initial]]
for _s in (
x
for xs in [
(stack.append(function(stack.pop(), e)) or ()
for e in sequence),
[[None]],
]
for x in xs)
for _ in _s][0]
And we can also get the initial from the sequence for the two-argument reduce.
[stack.pop()
for it in [iter(sequence)]
for stack in [[next(it)]]
for _s in (
x
for xs in [
(stack.append(function(stack.pop(), e)) or ()
for e in it),
[[None]],
]
for x in xs)
for _ in _s][0]
This is insane. But it works. So yes, it's possible to get "reduce-like functionality" with comprehensions. That doesn't mean you should. Seven fors is too hard!
You could accomplish something like a reduce with a comprehension by using a couple of helper functions that I've named last and cofold:
>>> last(r(a+b) for a, b, r in cofold(range(10)))
45
This is functionally equivalent to
>>> reduce(lambda a, b: a+b, range(10))
45
Note that unlike reduce() the comprehension didn't use a lambda.
The trick is to use a generator with a callback to "return" the result of the operator. cofold is the corecursive dual of the reduce (or fold) function.
_sentinel = object()
def cofold(it, initial=_sentinel):
if initial is _sentinel:
it = iter(it)
accumulator = next(it)
else:
accumulator = initial
def callback(result):
nonlocal accumulator
accumulator = result
return result
for element in it:
yield accumulator, element, callback
Here's cofold in a list comprehension.
>>> [r(a+b) for a, b, r in cofold(range(10))]
[1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, 45]
The elements represent each step in the dual reduction. The last one is our answer. The last function is trivial.
def last(it):
for e in it:
pass
return e
Unlike reduce, cofold is a lazy generator, so it can safely act on infinite iterables when used in a generator expression.
>>> from itertools import islice, count
>>> lazy_results = (r(a+b) for a, b, r in cofold(count()))
>>> [*islice(lazy_results, 0, 9)]
[1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, 45]
>>> next(lazy_results)
55
>>> next(lazy_results)
66
I created a line that appends an object to a list in the following manner
>>> foo = list()
>>> def sum(a, b):
... c = a+b; return c
...
>>> bar_list = [9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0]
>>> [foo.append(sum(i,x)) for i, x in enumerate(bar_list)]
[None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None]
>>> foo
[9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9]
>>>
The line
[foo.append(sum(i,x)) for i, x in enumerate(bar_list)]
would give a pylint W1060 Expression is assigned to nothing, but since I am already using the foo list to append the values I don't need to assing the List Comprehension line to something.
My questions is more of a matter of programming correctness
Should I drop list comprehension and just use a simple for expression?
>>> for i, x in enumerate(bar_list):
... foo.append(sum(i,x))
or is there a correct way to use both list comprehension an assign to nothing?
Answer
Thank you #user2387370, #kindall and #Martijn Pieters. For the rest of the comments I use append because I'm not using a list(), I'm not using i+x because this is just a simplified example.
I left it as the following:
histogramsCtr = hist_impl.HistogramsContainer()
for index, tupl in enumerate(local_ranges_per_histogram_list):
histogramsCtr.append(doSubHistogramData(index, tupl))
return histogramsCtr
Yes, this is bad style. A list comprehension is to build a list. You're building a list full of Nones and then throwing it away. Your actual desired result is a side effect of this effort.
Why not define foo using the list comprehension in the first place?
foo = [sum(i,x) for i, x in enumerate(bar_list)]
If it is not to be a list but some other container class, as you mentioned in a comment on another answer, write that class to accept an iterable in its constructor (or, if it's not your code, subclass it to do so), then pass it a generator expression:
foo = MyContainer(sum(i, x) for i, x in enumerate(bar_list))
If foo already has some value and you wish to append new items:
foo.extend(sum(i,x) for i, x in enumerate(bar_list))
If you really want to use append() and don't want to use a for loop for some reason then you can use this construction; the generator expression will at least avoid wasting memory and CPU cycles on a list you don't want:
any(foo.append(sum(i, x)) for i, x in enumerate(bar_list))
But this is a good deal less clear than a regular for loop, and there's still some extra work being done: any is testing the return value of foo.append() on each iteration. You can write a function to consume the iterator and eliminate that check; the fastest way uses a zero-length collections.deque:
from collections import deque
do = deque([], maxlen=0).extend
do(foo.append(sum(i, x)) for i, x in enumerate(bar_list))
This is actually fairly readable, but I believe it's not actually any faster than any() and requires an extra import. However, either do() or any() is a little faster than a for loop, if that is a concern.
I think it's generally frowned upon to use list comprehensions just for side-effects, so I would say a for loop is better in this case.
But in any case, couldn't you just do foo = [sum(i,x) for i, x in enumerate(bar_list)]?
You should definitely drop the list comprehension. End of.
You are confusing anyone reading your code. You are building a list for the side-effects.
You are paying CPU cycles and memory for building a list you are discarding again.
In your simplified case, you are overlooking the fact you could have used a list comprehension directly:
[sum(i,x) for i, x in enumerate(bar_list)]
I have a tuple and would like to reverse it in Python.
The tuple looks like this : (2, (4, (1, (10, None)))).
I tried reversing in Python by:
a = (2, (4, (1, (10, None))))
b = reversed(a)
It returns me this:
<reversed object at 0x02C73270>
How do I get the reverse of a? Or must I write a function to do this?
The result should look like this:
((((None, 10), 1), 4), 2)
def my_reverser(x):
try:
x_ = x[::-1]
except TypeError:
return x
else:
return x if len(x) == 1 else tuple(my_reverser(e) for e in x_)
Try this deep-reverse function:
def deep_reverse(t):
return tuple(deep_reverse(x) if isinstance(x, tuple) else x
for x in reversed(t))
This will handle arbitrarily nested tuples, not just two-tuples.
As explained in the documentation, the reversed function returns an iterator (hence the <reversed at ...>). If you want to get a list or a tuple out of it, just use list(reversed(...)) or tuple(reversed(...)).
However, it's only part of our problem: you'll be reversing the initial object (2, (...)) as (...,2), while the ... stays the same. You have to implement a recursive reverse: if one element of your input tuple is an iterable, you need to reverse it to.
It does not make sense to do this with reversed, sorry. But a simple recursive function would return what you want:
def reversedLinkedTuple(t):
if t is None:
return t
a, b = t
return reversedLinkedTuple(b), a
reversed is usable only on reversible iterable objects like lists, tuples and the like. What you are using (a linked list) isn't iterable in the sense of the Python built-in iter.
You could write a wrapping class for your linked list which implements this and then offers a reverse iterator, but I think that would be overkill and would not really suit your needs.
def reverse(x):
while x >= 0:
print(x)
x = x = 1
reverse(x)