Roose wrote:
It would be a lot simpler if it was included in the distribution. I would
be willing to add it (even though it is completely trivial). I think it
would go fine in itertools (I would even put them as builtins, but I'm not
going to go there because probably not everyone uses it as ofte
Roose wrote:
Previous discussion on this topic:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/a76b4c2caf6c435c
Michael
OK, well then. That's really the exact same thing, down to the names of the
functions. So what ever happened to that?
I don't recall: probably
http://www.google.c
> Previous discussion on this topic:
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/a76b4c2caf6c435c
>
> Michael
>
OK, well then. That's really the exact same thing, down to the names of the
functions. So what ever happened to that? That was over a year ago! I
don't see any mention
Roose wrote:
Yeah, as we can see there are a million ways to do it. But none of them are
as desirable as just having a library function to do the same thing. I'd
argue that since there are so many different ways, we should just collapse
them into one: any() and all(). That is more in keeping wit
Yeah, as we can see there are a million ways to do it. But none of them are
as desirable as just having a library function to do the same thing. I'd
argue that since there are so many different ways, we should just collapse
them into one: any() and all(). That is more in keeping with the python
"Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > So usually I just write a little function any( L, boolean_function =
> > identity ) or all( ... ). But I am kind of sick of doing that all the
> > time -- does it exist anywhere in the Python libraries? It seems r
George Sakkis wrote:
You're right, it doesn't short circuit, as most of the examples posted above.
Here's one that it
does:
...
I also looked into taking advantage of itertools' dropwhile, but the all
and any recipes included in the itertools documentation do short-circuit
and don't require the
In Python there are so many ways to do things...
This looks like another one, I haven't tested it:
not False in imap(pred, iterable)
As usual tests are required to measure the faster one.
I agree with Roose, there are are some "primitive" operations (like
this, and flatten, partition, mass remova
"Roose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I need this a lot: a one line way to do a n-ary and or 'or'.
>
> e.g.,
>
> result = True
> for x in L:
> if not boolean_function(x):
> result = False
>
> or
>
> >>> reduce(operator.__and__, [boolean_function(x) for x in L)
Steven Bethard wrote:
Another alternative:
not False in (bool(x) for x in L)
Note that this should short-circuit, where min won't.
Steve
Whoops, for some reason the thought that short-circuiting didn't apply
to And entered my mind while trying to post a nice solution. Hard to say
why considering
Michael Hartl wrote:
> I warmly recommend downloading Peter Norvig's Python utilities file
> (http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/python/utils.py) and putting it on your
> Python path. (E.g., in bash, put a line like
>
> export PYTHONPATH="/path/to/utilities_directory"
>
> in your .bashrc file.) The uti
Brian Beck wrote:
Roose wrote:
I need this a lot: a one line way to do a n-ary and or 'or'.
Here's a one-liner for the n-ary and:
bool(min(bool(x) for x in L))
py> bool(min(bool(x) for x in [1, 1, 1, 0]))
False
py> bool(min(bool(x) for x in [1, 1, 1, 1]))
True
py> bool(min(bool(x) for x in ['a', ''
Roose wrote:
I need this a lot: a one line way to do a n-ary and or 'or'.
Here's a one-liner for the n-ary and:
bool(min(bool(x) for x in L))
py> bool(min(bool(x) for x in [1, 1, 1, 0]))
False
py> bool(min(bool(x) for x in [1, 1, 1, 1]))
True
py> bool(min(bool(x) for x in ['a', '', 'b', 'c']))
Fals
Brian Beck wrote:
def all(seq, pred=bool):
"Returns True if pred(x) is True for every element in the iterable"
for elem in ifilterfalse(pred, seq):
return False
return True
def any(seq, pred=bool):
"Returns True if pred(x) is True for at least one element in the
iterable"
Roose wrote:
I need this a lot: a one line way to do a n-ary and or 'or'.
e.g.,
result = True
for x in L:
if not boolean_function(x):
result = False
or
reduce(operator.__and__, [boolean_function(x) for x in L)
Can you use itertools?
py> def boolfn(x):
... print "boolfn: %r" % x
... re
Roose wrote:
I need this a lot: a one line way to do a n-ary and or 'or'.
Looks like there are itertools recipes for those, similar to what
Michael just posted. Taken from here:
http://docs.python.org/lib/itertools-recipes.html
def all(seq, pred=bool):
"Returns True if pred(x) is True for ev
I warmly recommend downloading Peter Norvig's Python utilities file
(http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/python/utils.py) and putting it on your
Python path. (E.g., in bash, put a line like
export PYTHONPATH="/path/to/utilities_directory"
in your .bashrc file.) The utils.py file defines many useful
fun
> So usually I just write a little function any( L, boolean_function =
> identity ) or all( ... ). But I am kind of sick of doing that all the
> time -- does it exist anywhere in the Python libraries? It seems really
> common to me.
Put things into your own module and add it to your python path.
I need this a lot: a one line way to do a n-ary and or 'or'.
e.g.,
result = True
for x in L:
if not boolean_function(x):
result = False
or
>>> reduce(operator.__and__, [boolean_function(x) for x in L)
So usually I just write a little function any( L, boolean_function =
identity ) or all(
19 matches
Mail list logo
