Extremely basic question that I don't quite get.
If I have this line:
my_string = "how now brown cow"
and I change it like so
my_string.split()
Is this acceptable coding practice to just straight write it like that to change it?
or should I instead change it like so:
my_string = my_string.split()
don't both effectively do the same thing?
when would I use one over the other?
how does this ultimately affect my code?
always try to avoid:
my_string = my_string.split()
never, ever do something like that. the main problem with that is it's going to introduce a lot of code bugs in the future, especially for another maintainer of the code. the main problem with this, is that the result of this the split() operation is not a string anymore: it's a list. Therefore, assigning a result of this type to a variable named my_string is bound to cause more problems in the end.
The first line doesn't actually change it - it calls the .split() method on the string, but since you're not doing anything with what that function call returns, the results are just discarded.
In the second case, you assign the returned values to my_string - that means your original string is discarded, but my_string no refers to the parts returned by .split().
Both calls to .split() do the same thing, but the lines of your program do something different.
You would only use the first example if you wanted to know if a split would cause an error, for example:
try:
my_string.split()
except:
print('That was unexpected...')
The second example is the typical use, although you could us the result directly in some other way, for example passing it to a function:
print(my_string.split())
It's not a bad question though - you'll find that some libraries favour methods that change the contents of the object they are called on, while other libraries favour returning the processed result without touching the original. They are different programming paradigms and programmers can be very divided on the subject.
In most cases, Python itself (and its built-in functions and standard libraries) favours the more functional approach and will return the result of the operation, without changing the original, but there are exceptions.
Related
Is there any other code form, that one can both use a function in if statement and get the value of function without executing the function twice?
For example,
There exists a function, fun1(arg), which takes an hour to return its result (The result value can be either None or some int)
and I want to do some further calculation(for example get its squared value) only if the result from fun1 is not None.
This will be done by:
result = fun1(arg)
if result:
result = result * result
Is there any shorter form such as
if (result = fun1(arg)):
result = result * result
in python?
It may be more "clean" in a code manner, it is possible in C/C++ to do the 2nd one. Not in Python to the best of my knowledge. Moreover, the two examples you gave have the exact same needs in term of memory and computation. So it would be totally equivalent to use any of these two.
The two are absolutely identical. So my answer would be, go with your first method that you already know how to code 👍.
Do not over complicate when it is not necessary, it is a good piece of advice in general.
This is coming in a future version of python. See the following PEP
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0572/
It'll be known as an assignment expression. The proposed syntax is like;
# Handle a matched regex
if (match := pattern.search(data)) is not None:
# Do something with match
No you can't do this. Statements in Python not work as expressions in C with ;.
Well the second possible solution you wrote is incorrect since the 'result' variable in the if statement has no preassigned value. I would simply go with the first one...
What you are trying to do in your 2nd code is assignment inside expressions, which can't be done in Python.
From the official docs
Note that in Python, unlike C, assignment cannot occur inside expressions. C programmers may grumble about this, but it avoids a common class of problems encountered in C programs: typing = in an expression when == was intended.
also, see:
http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-can-t-i-use-an-assignment-in-an-expression.htm
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
So a few days ago we got this exercise where we need to make a function that takes two lists as input and calculates the difference of their averages.
Sounds simple enough, but there are a few catches:
the entire thing needs to be one line long
you can absolutely NOT use ':'
They encouraged us to use 'import', 'help()' and 'dir()'.
The thing is that I know how to make it only one line long, but the no ':' is really annoying.
The way I see it, I first need to define a function (without code) then change it's 'func_code' attr.
Any ideas on how can I do it?
And how do the params fit into this?
Any answer is appreciated!!!
Edit: thanks for all the answers and the creative minds that said char(58) is the solution, it is really creative and I haven't thought of that solution but it's not allowed since you are using ':' even though not directly.
No : means you can't use lambda. That leaves higher-order functions or eval trickery.
eval('lambda a,b{}sum(a)/len(a)-sum(b)/len(b)'.format(chr(58)))
This meets the letter of the law, but violates its spirit.
Unfortunately, without a function composition function, higher-order functions don't work very well. Implementing one without : is tricky.
Here's what should be a fairly self-contained solution, using a pickled code object. I've created it in Python 3.6, and the specific bytestring is very likely to be version specific, but you can create your own version pretty easily using the expanded code below. Anyway, here's the oneliner:
f = __import__('types').FunctionType(__import__('pickle').loads(b'\x80\x03cipykernel.codeutil\ncode_ctor\nq\x00(K\x02K\x00K\x02K\x04KCC t\x00|\x00\x83\x01t\x01|\x00\x83\x01\x1b\x00t\x00|\x01\x83\x01t\x01|\x01\x83\x01\x1b\x00\x18\x00S\x00q\x01N\x85q\x02X\x03\x00\x00\x00sumq\x03X\x03\x00\x00\x00lenq\x04\x86q\x05X\x01\x00\x00\x00aq\x06X\x01\x00\x00\x00bq\x07\x86q\x08X\x1e\x00\x00\x00<ipython-input-1-384cc87bd499>q\tX\x16\x00\x00\x00difference_of_averagesq\nK\x01C\x02\x00\x01q\x0b))tq\x0cRq\r.'), globals())
Here's what I'm doing without the one-line shenanigans:
import types # replace these import statements with calls to __import__ in the oneliner
import pickle
def difference_of_averages(a, b):
return sum(a)/len(a) - sum(b)/len(b)
payload = pickle.dumps(difference_of_averages.__code__) # embed as a literal in the oneliner
f = types.FunctionType(pickle.loads(payload), globals())
Hmm, having tried this on the few different interpreters I have at hand, it looks like my pickle string includes some nonsense from the IPython interpreter I created it in. If you get errors using my string, I'd suggest just building your own (which, if it contains any junk, will at least be junk compatible with your environment).
Not using ':' is tricky because you normally use it to define the function body, like this:
def average(number_list):
return sum(number_list) / len(number_list)
However, I know of one way to define a function that doesn't require require writing a block for its body: You can assign a lambda function (or even an already-defined function) to a function you want to define, simply by using the equal sign (=). For example, if you want to create an average() function, you might write:
average = lambda number_list: sum(number_list) / len(number_list)
average might look like a variable, but you can use it as a function. It simply calls the lambda function that takes a number_list as input and returns the average value of the number_list. You can call it like this:
value = average([10, 11, 12]) # sets value to 11
Now, lambda functions can only have one line. But that's not really a problem for you, since your task requires you to only use one line.
Do you understand what to do now? Your exercise requires you to find the average of two lists, so you might consider using a lambda function that takes two inputs (instead of just one, like in the example I gave above). Also bear in mind that you need to return the difference, and if the difference should always be positive, consider using Python's abs() function somewhere in your code.
Edit: Well, gilch's response made me realize that I can't use lambda because even they use :. So apparently you can't use my advice. It's still good to know about lambda functions, though.
The fact that you are encouraged to use import makes me wonder if it's okay for you to use an already-defined function from some module to define your own function. Kind of like this:
import math; average = math.difference_of_averages
However, that depends on you being able to find a (probably standard) function that does exactly what you want. (I've briefly checked the math and numpy modules, and haven't found anything that matches yet.)
And maybe this means that you can create a module and define it anyway you like. The module is in its own world, so it's not constrained to the rules of your exercise.
Then again, maybe not.
So unless you want to "sneak-in" a : in an eval statement (as gilch suggested), like this:
average = eval('lambda number_list' + chr(58) + ' sum(number_list) / len(number_list)')
there's no way I know of off hand to avoidi using :.
I'm asking about situations where if a wrong type of argument is passed to the function, it could:
Blow up the whole thing.
Return unexpected results
Return nothing
For instance, the function below expects the argument name to be a string. It would throw an exception for all other types that doesn't have a startswith method.
def fruits(name):
if name.startswith('O'):
print('Is it Orange?')
There are other cases where a function could halt or cause damage to the system if execution proceeds without type-checking. Whenever there are a lot of functions or functions with a lot of arguments, type checking is tedious and makes the code unreadable. So, is there a standard for doing this? As to 'how to type check' - there are plenty of examples here on stackexchange, but I couldn't find any about where it would be appropriate to do so.
Another example would be:
def fruits(names):
with open('important_file.txt', 'r+') as fil:
for name in names:
if name in fil:
# Edit the file
Here if the name is a string each character in it will influence the editing of the file. If it is any other iterable, each element provided by it would influence the editing. Both of these could produce different results.
So, when should we type-check an argument and should we not?
The answer off the top of my head would be: it depends where the input comes from.
If the functions are class methods that get invokes internally or things like that, you can assume the inputs are valid, because you wrote it!
For example
def add(x,y):
return x + y
def multiply(a,b):
product = 0
for i in range(a):
product = add(product, b)
return product
In my add function, I could check that there is a + operator for the parameters x and y. But since I wrote the multiply function, and that is the only function that uses add, it is safe to assume the inputs will be int because that's how I wrote it. Now that argument stands on shaky ground for large code bases where you (hopefully) have shared code, so you can't be sure people don't misuse your functions. But that's why you comment them well to describe the correct use of said function.
If it has to read from a file, get user input, etc, then you may want to do some validation first.
I almost never do type checking in Python. In accordance with Pythonic philosophy I assume that me and other programmers are adult people capable of reading the code (or at least the documentation) and using it properly. I assume that we test our code before we let it destroy something important. After all in most cases if you do something wrong, you'll just see an error and Python's error messages are quite informative most of the time.
The only occasion when I sometimes check types is when I want my function to behave differently depending on the argument's type. But although I sometimes feel compelled to do this, I don't consider it a good practice.
Most often it happens when my function iterates over a list of strings and I fear (or want) I could get a single string passed into it by accident - this won't throw an error at once because unfortunately string is an iterable too.
Let's say I want to partition a string. It returns a tuple of 3 items. I do not need the second item.
I have read that _ is used when a variable is to be ignored.
bar = 'asd cds'
start,_,end = bar.partition(' ')
If I understand it correctly, the _ is still filled with the value. I haven't heard of a way to ignore some part of the output.
Wouldn't that save cycles?
A bigger example would be
def foo():
return list(range(1000))
start,*_,end = foo()
It wouldn't really save any cycles to ignore the return argument, no, except for those which are trivially saved, by noting that there is no point to binding a name to a returned object that isn't used.
Python doesn't do any function inlining or cross-function optimization. It isn't targeting that niche in the slightest. Nor should it, as that would compromise many of the things that python is good at. A lot of core python functionality depends on the simplicity of its design.
Same for your list unpacking example. Its easy to think of syntactic sugar to have python pick the last and first item of the list, given that syntax. But there is no way, staying within the defining constraints of python, to actually not construct the whole list first. Who is to say that the construction of the list does not have relevant side-effects? Python, as a language, will certainly not guarantee you any such thing. As a dynamic language, python does not even have the slightest clue, or tries to concern itself, with the fact that foo might return a list, until the moment that it actually does so.
And will it return a list? What if you rebound the list identifier?
As per the docs, a valid variable name can be of this form
identifier ::= (letter|"_") (letter | digit | "_")*
It means that, first character of a variable name can be a letter or an underscore and rest of the name can have a letter or a digit or _. So, _ is a valid variable name in Python but that is less commonly used. So people normally use that like a use and throw variable.
And the syntax you have shown is not valid. It should have been
start,*_,end = foo()
Anyway, this kind of unpacking will work only in Python 3.x
In your example, you have used
list(range(1000))
So, the entire list is already constructed. When you return it, you are actually returning a reference to the list, the values are not copied actually. So, there is no specific way to ignore the values as such.
There certainly is a way to extract just a few elements. To wit:
l = foo()
start, end = foo[0], foo[-1]
The question you're asking is, then, "Why doesn't there exist a one-line shorthand for this?" There are two answers to that:
It's not common enough to need shorthand for. The two line solution is adequate for this uncommon scenario.
Features don't need a good reason to not exist. It's not like Guido van Rossum compiled a list of all possible ideas and then struck out yours. If you have an idea for improved syntax you could propose it to the Python community and see if you could get them to implement it.
I have some functions in my code that accept either an object or an iterable of objects as input. I was taught to use meaningful names for everything, but I am not sure how to comply here. What should I call a parameter that can a sinlge object or an iterable of objects? I have come up with two ideas, but I don't like either of them:
FooOrManyFoos - This expresses what goes on, but I could imagine that someone not used to it could have trouble understanding what it means right away
param - Some generic name. This makes clear that it can be several things, but does explain nothing about what the parameter is used for.
Normally I call iterables of objects just the plural of what I would call a single object. I know this might seem a little bit compulsive, but Python is supposed to be (among others) about readability.
I have some functions in my code that accept either an object or an iterable of objects as input.
This is a very exceptional and often very bad thing to do. It's trivially avoidable.
i.e., pass [foo] instead of foo when calling this function.
The only time you can justify doing this is when (1) you have an installed base of software that expects one form (iterable or singleton) and (2) you have to expand it to support the other use case. So. You only do this when expanding an existing function that has an existing code base.
If this is new development, Do Not Do This.
I have come up with two ideas, but I don't like either of them:
[Only two?]
FooOrManyFoos - This expresses what goes on, but I could imagine that someone not used to it could have trouble understanding what it means right away
What? Are you saying you provide NO other documentation, and no other training? No support? No advice? Who is the "someone not used to it"? Talk to them. Don't assume or imagine things about them.
Also, don't use Leading Upper Case Names.
param - Some generic name. This makes clear that it can be several things, but does explain nothing about what the parameter is used for.
Terrible. Never. Do. This.
I looked in the Python library for examples. Most of the functions that do this have simple descriptions.
http://docs.python.org/library/functions.html#isinstance
isinstance(object, classinfo)
They call it "classinfo" and it can be a class or a tuple of classes.
You could do that, too.
You must consider the common use case and the exceptions. Follow the 80/20 rule.
80% of the time, you can replace this with an iterable and not have this problem.
In the remaining 20% of the cases, you have an installed base of software built around an assumption (either iterable or single item) and you need to add the other case. Don't change the name, just change the documentation. If it used to say "foo" it still says "foo" but you make it accept an iterable of "foo's" without making any change to the parameters. If it used to say "foo_list" or "foo_iter", then it still says "foo_list" or "foo_iter" but it will quietly tolerate a singleton without breaking.
80% of the code is the legacy ("foo" or "foo_list")
20% of the code is the new feature ("foo" can be an iterable or "foo_list" can be a single object.)
I guess I'm a little late to the party, but I'm suprised that nobody suggested a decorator.
def withmany(f):
def many(many_foos):
for foo in many_foos:
yield f(foo)
f.many = many
return f
#withmany
def process_foo(foo):
return foo + 1
processed_foo = process_foo(foo)
for processed_foo in process_foo.many(foos):
print processed_foo
I saw a similar pattern in one of Alex Martelli's posts but I don't remember the link off hand.
It sounds like you're agonizing over the ugliness of code like:
def ProcessWidget(widget_thing):
# Infer if we have a singleton instance and make it a
# length 1 list for consistency
if isinstance(widget_thing, WidgetType):
widget_thing = [widget_thing]
for widget in widget_thing:
#...
My suggestion is to avoid overloading your interface to handle two distinct cases. I tend to write code that favors re-use and clear naming of methods over clever dynamic use of parameters:
def ProcessOneWidget(widget):
#...
def ProcessManyWidgets(widgets):
for widget in widgets:
ProcessOneWidget(widget)
Often, I start with this simple pattern, but then have the opportunity to optimize the "Many" case when there are efficiencies to gain that offset the additional code complexity and partial duplication of functionality. If this convention seems overly verbose, one can opt for names like "ProcessWidget" and "ProcessWidgets", though the difference between the two is a single easily missed character.
You can use *args magic (varargs) to make your params always be iterable.
Pass a single item or multiple known items as normal function args like func(arg1, arg2, ...) and pass iterable arguments with an asterisk before, like func(*args)
Example:
# magic *args function
def foo(*args):
print args
# many ways to call it
foo(1)
foo(1, 2, 3)
args1 = (1, 2, 3)
args2 = [1, 2, 3]
args3 = iter((1, 2, 3))
foo(*args1)
foo(*args2)
foo(*args3)
Can you name your parameter in a very high-level way? people who read the code are more interested in knowing what the parameter represents ("clients") than what their type is ("list_of_tuples"); the type can be defined in the function documentation string, which is a good thing since it might change, in the future (the type is sometimes an implementation detail).
I would do 1 thing,
def myFunc(manyFoos):
if not type(manyFoos) in (list,tuple):
manyFoos = [manyFoos]
#do stuff here
so then you don't need to worry anymore about its name.
in a function you should try to achieve to have 1 action, accept the same parameter type and return the same type.
Instead of filling the functions with ifs you could have 2 functions.
Since you don't care exactly what kind of iterable you get, you could try to get an iterator for the parameter using iter(). If iter() raises a TypeError exception, the parameter is not iterable, so you then create a list or tuple of the one item, which is iterable and Bob's your uncle.
def doIt(foos):
try:
iter(foos)
except TypeError:
foos = [foos]
for foo in foos:
pass # do something here
The only problem with this approach is if foo is a string. A string is iterable, so passing in a single string rather than a list of strings will result in iterating over the characters in a string. If this is a concern, you could add an if test for it. At this point it's getting wordy for boilerplate code, so I'd break it out into its own function.
def iterfy(iterable):
if isinstance(iterable, basestring):
iterable = [iterable]
try:
iter(iterable)
except TypeError:
iterable = [iterable]
return iterable
def doIt(foos):
for foo in iterfy(foos):
pass # do something
Unlike some of those answering, I like doing this, since it eliminates one thing the caller could get wrong when using your API. "Be conservative in what you generate but liberal in what you accept."
To answer your original question, i.e. what you should name the parameter, I would still go with "foos" even though you will accept a single item, since your intent is to accept a list. If it's not iterable, that is technically a mistake, albeit one you will correct for the caller since processing just the one item is probably what they want. Also, if the caller thinks they must pass in an iterable even of one item, well, that will of course work fine and requires very little syntax, so why worry about correcting their misapprehension?
I would go with a name explaining that the parameter can be an instance or a list of instances. Say one_or_more_Foo_objects. I find it better than the bland param.
I'm working on a fairly big project now and we're passing maps around and just calling our parameter map. The map contents vary depending on the function that's being called. This probably isn't the best situation, but we reuse a lot of the same code on the maps, so copying and pasting is easier.
I would say instead of naming it what it is, you should name it what it's used for. Also, just be careful that you can't call use in on a not iterable.