At 10:12 AM 9/15/2005, Christopher Arndt wrote:
Hi,I wonder if there is a
shorter form of the following idiom:list1 = []list2 = []for item
in original_list: if condition(item):
list1.append(item) else:
list2.append(item)Consider (5 lines instead of 7):lists
= [[], []]for it
> Luis,
>
> I was actually asking how usable Boa-Constructor is right now for project
> purposes, since I had "heard" it was kind of unstable and crashes a lot. Is
> that your experience with Boa-Constructor? Or was the information I found
> misleading?
>
> Thanks,
> Terry
I found Boa-co
Alan G schrieb:
> My personal approach would be two separate comprehensions(*) which
> keeps the intent very clear and keeps it short at the expense
> of iterating the original list twice.
Of course this works only if condition(item) yields the same result each time
it is called with the same in
> 1427021_s_at chr7:102786983-102794499(+)
> 1452285_a_at chr7:102786983-102794499(+)
> 1445553_atchr7:102848766-102910961(-)
> 1420925_atchr7:102863841-102887410(+)
> 1450041_a_at chr7:102863841-102887410(+)
> 1447553_x_at chr7:102899711-102899
>> [condition(i) and list1.append(i) or list2.append(i) for i in
>> original]
>
> Hmm, no, this will always evaluate list2.append(i) because
> the value of list1.append(i) is None. You could use
>
> [ (condition(i) and list1 or list2).append(i) for i in original ]
Oops! Good point, which empha
"Bearing in mind that shorter is not necessarily better..."
Wouldn't shorter, as a rule of thumb, as in less language statements, mean fewer
executions, and therefore faster?
___
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mai
On 16/09/05, Kent Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan Gauld wrote:
> > Bearing in mind that shorter is not necessarily better...
> >
> > [condition(i) and list1.append(i) or list2.append(i) for i in
> > original]
>
> Hmm, no, this will always evaluate list2.append(i) because the value of
>
Hello group,
I have a data like this in tab-delim text.
1427021_s_atchr7:102786983-102794499(+)
1452285_a_atchr7:102786983-102794499(+)
1445553_at chr7:102848766-102910961(-)
1420925_at chr7:102863841-102887410(+)
1450041_a_atchr7:102863841-10
Alan Gauld schreef:
>>I wonder if there is a shorter form of the following idiom:
>
>
> Bearing in mind that shorter is not necessarily better...
>
> [condition(i) and list1.append(i) or list2.append(i) for i in
> original]
Alas, won't work. This is one of the cases where the ... and ... or ..
Yeah be careful with some of the cygwin tools. I had an issue with the jar
command being picked up from cygwin/bin instead of JAVA_HOME and it was
corrupting the contents of a jar file.
-george
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Alan Mon
Alan Gauld wrote:
>>I wonder if there is a shorter form of the following idiom:
>
>
> Bearing in mind that shorter is not necessarily better...
>
> [condition(i) and list1.append(i) or list2.append(i) for i in
> original]
Hmm, no, this will always evaluate list2.append(i) because the value of
>> Cygwin (http://www.cygwin.com/) It gives you a bash shell in
>> Windows.
> Actually it gives you a whole Unix environment including X Windows
> and over 500 unix command line tools plus GNU C, sendmail, etc etc...
Watch out, because cygwin-native python can conflict with win32
python, if the
> I wonder if there is a shorter form of the following idiom:
Bearing in mind that shorter is not necessarily better...
[condition(i) and list1.append(i) or list2.append(i) for i in
original]
This returns a list of booleans that we throw away but the
list1,list2 containers will have been modifi
Danny Yoo schrieb:
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:33:08 -0500
> From: JackA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Danny Yoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Tutor] GETTING AN _.EXE VERSION OF _.PY program to run on a
> machine that does not have Python installed
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:33:08 -0500
From: JackA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Danny Yoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Tutor] GETTING AN _.EXE VERSION OF _.PY program to run on a
machine that does not have Python installed on it.
Sorry for the boo boo b
Christopher Arndt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if there is a shorter form of the following idiom:
>
> list1 = []
> list2 = []
> for item in original_list:
> if condition(item):
> list1.append(item)
> else:
> list2.append(item)
I don't think so. You can write it as two list c
> for f, x in bunch_of_files, range(z):
...
> Or maybe can I access the number of times the
> loop has run?
I think thats what enumerate does...
>>> for x,y in enumerate([1,3,5]):
... print x,y
...
0 1
1 3
2 5
>>>
Yep, looks like what you need.
Alan G
Author of the Learn to Program web
> Cygwin (http://www.cygwin.com/) It gives you a bash shell in
> Windows.
Actually it gives you a whole Unix environment including X Windows
and over 500 unix command line tools plus GNU C, sendmail, etc etc...
Alan G.
___
Tutor maillist - Tutor@py
If you are a Unix head using windows run to the cygwin site
and install the whole caboodle.
You'll think you are back in Unix land...
If thats impossible them open a DOS boc (aka Command Prompt)
and type
python foo.py
Or even just double click the file in Windows explorer...
Alan G.
- Or
Hi,
I wonder if there is a shorter form of the following idiom:
list1 = []
list2 = []
for item in original_list:
if condition(item):
list1.append(item)
else:
list2.append(item)
(optional step:)
original_list[:] = list1
I call this the "Aschenputtel" problem, because it
Wonderful, thank you all of you.
zip, enumerate, and count seem to do everything I want, though I do think
for f, x in bunch_of_files, range(z):
is a little more intuitive than
for f, x in zip(bunch_of_files, range(z)):
Thanks
Ed
On 15/09/05, Kent Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ed Sing
Ed Singleton wrote:
> I roughly want to be able to do:
>
> for f, x in bunch_of_files, range(z):
>
> so that x iterates through my files, and y iterates through something else.
>
> Is this something I can do?
In the general case use zip():
for f, x in zip(bunch_of_files, range(z)):
In this cas
You have a much simpler solution !
As this is a most common task to iterate on a sequence while keeping
track of the index, there is an object just for that :
for i,x in enumerate(iterable):
# Here "i" is the index and "x" the element
Also, to get some "advance" iteration schemes, have a lot at
On 9/15/05, Ed Singleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I roughly want to be able to do:
>
> for x, y in bunch_of_files, range(z):
>
> so that x iterates through my files, and y iterates through something else.
>
> Is this something I can do?
It's not fully clear to me what you want to do. Do you
assume:
you have two list with the same size
L1 = [1,2,3]
L2 = [11,22,33]
you can zip the L1 and L2 into L
L = zip(L1,L2) # L = [(1,11),(2,22),(3,33)]
then you can process:
for x in L:
dosomething(x[0])...
dosomething(x[1])...
I'm not so sure about your problem but
If you want to do som
I roughly want to be able to do:
for f, x in bunch_of_files, range(z):
so that x iterates through my files, and y iterates through something else.
Is this something I can do?
If so, what would be the best way to create a range of indeterminate length?
If not, is there a nice way I can do it, r
26 matches
Mail list logo
