471,620 Members | 1,383 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post +

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 471,620 software developers and data experts.

list of lambda

hello,
when i create list of lambdas:
l=[lambda:x.upper() for x in ['a','b','c']]
then l[0]() returns 'C', i think, it should be 'A'

my workaround is to define helper class with __call__ method:
class X:
def __init__(self,s): self.s=s
def __call__(self): return self.s.upper()
l=[X(x) for x in ['a','b','c']]

now it is correct, l[0]()=='A'

it is OK or it is bug?
can i do it correctly simplier than with helper X class?

thanks
Honza Prochazka
Nov 11 '05 #1
6 1831
jena wrote:
hello,
when i create list of lambdas:
l=[lambda:x.upper() for x in ['a','b','c']]
then l[0]() returns 'C', i think, it should be 'A'


Fredrik Lundh provided the general solution, but in this specific case,
the simplest solution is:

l = [x.upper for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]
Nov 22 '05 #2
jena <je**@vlakosim.com> writes:
l=[lambda:x.upper() for x in ['a','b','c']]
then l[0]() returns 'C', i think, it should be 'A'


Yeah, this is Python late binding, a standard thing to get confused
over. You want:

l = [lambda x=x: x.upper() for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]
Nov 22 '05 #3

Leif K-Brooks wrote:
jena wrote:
hello,
when i create list of lambdas:
l=[lambda:x.upper() for x in ['a','b','c']]
then l[0]() returns 'C', i think, it should be 'A'


Fredrik Lundh provided the general solution, but in this specific case,
the simplest solution is:

l = [x.upper for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]


how about :

l = ['A','B','C']

Nov 22 '05 #4
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:17:59 +0100, jena wrote:
hello,
when i create list of lambdas:
l=[lambda:x.upper() for x in ['a','b','c']]
then l[0]() returns 'C', i think, it should be 'A'


What is wrong with just doing this?

L = [x.upper() for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]

py> L = [lambda: x.upper() for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]
py> L
[<function <lambda> at 0xf6ff9844>, <function <lambda> at 0xf6ff987c>, <function <lambda> at 0xf6ff98b4>]

Why do you want a list of functions?
L[0]() 'C' L[1]() 'C' L[2]()

'C'

What you have discovered is a bug in your code, caused by some accidental
behaviour of Python which will be removed in a new version soon:

py> [x.upper() for x in "abc"]
['A', 'B', 'C']
py> x
'c'

You can see that the temporary variable x used by the list comprehension
is exposed. It shouldn't be, and soon won't be -- it will be an error to
refer to the list comp variable outside the list comp.

Now watch this:

py> x = "it is was a mistake to expose list comprehension variables"
py> L[0]()
'IT IS WAS A MISTAKE TO EXPOSE LIST COMPREHENSION VARIABLES'
py> L[1]()
'IT IS WAS A MISTAKE TO EXPOSE LIST COMPREHENSION VARIABLES'

Do you see what is going on now?
Assuming you actually do need a list of *functions*, rather than just
the results of those functions, this would be the way to do it:

lambda x: x.upper()

is an anonymous function which takes input x and returns x converted to
upper case.

lambda x: x.upper # note the brackets are gone

is an anonymous function which takes input x and returns a function
(technically, a method) which will return x converted to upper case when
called.

So the list comprehension you want is:
# note all the brackets
py> L = [(lambda x: x.upper)(x) for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]
py> L
[<built-in method upper of str object at 0xf706a040>, <built-in method upper of str object at 0xf706a0e0>, <built-in method upper of str object at 0xf706ca00>]
py> L[0](); L[1](); L[2]()
'A'
'B'
'C'

But now that gives us a clue that using lambda just adds too much
complication! What we want is the string methods, and we don't need lambda
to get them. So we can make it much simpler:

py> L = [x.upper for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]
py> L
[<built-in method upper of str object at 0xf706a040>, <built-in method upper of str object at 0xf706a0e0>, <built-in method upper of str object at 0xf706ca00>]
py> L[0](); L[1](); L[2]()
'A'
'B'
'C'

Hope this helps.
--
Steven.

Nov 22 '05 #5
On 11 Nov 2005 18:28:22 -0800, Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
jena <je**@vlakosim.com> writes:
l=[lambda:x.upper() for x in ['a','b','c']]
then l[0]() returns 'C', i think, it should be 'A'


Yeah, this is Python late binding, a standard thing to get confused
over. You want:

l = [lambda x=x: x.upper() for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]


or if you want the upper() eagerly (and do it only once each,
in case of multiple lambda calls)

l = [lambda x=x.upper():x for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]
l = [lambda x=x.upper():x for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]
for lamb in l: print lamb.func_defaults[0],'=?=',lamb()

...
A =?= A
B =?= B
C =?= C

Regards,
Bengt Richter
Nov 22 '05 #6
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 14:55:31 +1100, Steven D'Aprano <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:17:59 +0100, jena wrote:
hello,
when i create list of lambdas:
l=[lambda:x.upper() for x in ['a','b','c']]
then l[0]() returns 'C', i think, it should be 'A'


What is wrong with just doing this?

L = [x.upper() for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]

py> L = [lambda: x.upper() for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]
py> L
[<function <lambda> at 0xf6ff9844>, <function <lambda> at 0xf6ff987c>, <function <lambda> at 0xf6ff98b4>]

Why do you want a list of functions?
L[0]()'C' L[1]()'C' L[2]()'C'

What you have discovered is a bug in your code, caused by some accidental
behaviour of Python which will be removed in a new version soon:

py> [x.upper() for x in "abc"]
['A', 'B', 'C']
py> x
'c'

You can see that the temporary variable x used by the list comprehension
is exposed. It shouldn't be, and soon won't be -- it will be an error to
refer to the list comp variable outside the list comp.

Now watch this:

py> x = "it is was a mistake to expose list comprehension variables"
py> L[0]()
'IT IS WAS A MISTAKE TO EXPOSE LIST COMPREHENSION VARIABLES'
py> L[1]()
'IT IS WAS A MISTAKE TO EXPOSE LIST COMPREHENSION VARIABLES'

Do you see what is going on now?
Assuming you actually do need a list of *functions*, rather than just
the results of those functions, this would be the way to do it:

lambda x: x.upper()

is an anonymous function which takes input x and returns x converted to
upper case.

lambda x: x.upper # note the brackets are gone

is an anonymous function which takes input x and returns a function
(technically, a method) which will return x converted to upper case when
called.

So the list comprehension you want is:
# note all the brackets
py> L = [(lambda x: x.upper)(x) for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]
py> L
[<built-in method upper of str object at 0xf706a040>, <built-in method upper of str object at 0xf706a0e0>, <built-in method upper of str object at 0xf706ca00>]
py> L[0](); L[1](); L[2]()
'A'
'B'
'C'

But now that gives us a clue that using lambda just adds too much
complication! What we want is the string methods, and we don't need lambda
to get them. So we can make it much simpler:

py> L = [x.upper for x in ['a', 'b', 'c']]
py> L
[<built-in method upper of str object at 0xf706a040>, <built-in method upper of str object at 0xf706a0e0>, <built-in method upper of str object at 0xf706ca00>]
py> L[0](); L[1](); L[2]()
'A'
'B'
'C'

Hope this helps.

Yes, but it exposes bad (improvable;-) repr text IMO:
It's not just a method, it's a _bound_ method, but the repr text
doesn't say so (unless you read clues between the lines)
'a'.upper <built-in method upper of str object at 0x02EB03A0> 'a'.upper.__self__ 'a'
str.upper <method 'upper' of 'str' objects>

That's the unbound method. If we bind it to 'a' in the usual way
behind inst.method,
type('a') <type 'str'> type('a').__dict__ <dictproxy object at 0x02E81C44> type('a').__dict__['upper'] <method 'upper' of 'str' objects> type('a').__dict__['upper'].__get__('a', type('a')) <built-in method upper of str object at 0x02EB03A0>

Or str.upper.__get__('a', str) <built-in method upper of str object at 0x02EB03A0>

we get the bound method. So the clue is "... of str objects" vs ".. of str object at ..."
Maybe nicer would be
<bound built-in method upper of str object at 0x02EB03A0>

Same if it's inherited: class S(str): pass ... S('a').upper <built-in method upper of S object at 0x02F87A7C> S('a').upper() 'A'

But if we override, we get 'bound method ...'
class S(str): ... def upper(self): return 'S.upper => %r' % str.upper(self)
... S('a').upper <bound method S.upper of 'a'> S('a').upper()

"S.upper => 'A'"

A nit. I thought it clever to replace the lambda with the the bound method,
but while supplying a callable, it still postpones the upper execution, and
will repeat it for each call, whereas lambda x=x.upper():x does the work once
up front (in general not always possible, of course).

Regards,
Bengt Richter
Nov 22 '05 #7

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

11 posts views Thread by Nicolas Girard | last post: by
23 posts views Thread by Fuzzyman | last post: by
42 posts views Thread by Alan McIntyre | last post: by
24 posts views Thread by Mandus | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Jef Driesen | last post: by
5 posts views Thread by Max Rybinsky | last post: by
11 posts views Thread by Josiah Manson | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by james_027 | last post: by
13 posts views Thread by Joel Koltner | last post: by
reply views Thread by leo001 | last post: by
1 post views Thread by ZEDKYRIE | last post: by

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.