455,587 Members | 1,734 Online Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,587 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

# What's the difference between these 2 statements?

 P: n/a What's the difference between these 2 statements? If you have a String s="12345" s[len(s)::-1] = "54321" But s[len(s):0:-1] = "5432" Why? What's the difference? What number then can I use as the end of the slice if I were to supply all 3 parameters? Thanks, AT Jul 19 '05 #1
11 Replies

 P: n/a ATSkyWalker wrote: What's the difference between these 2 statements? If you have a String s="12345" s[len(s)::-1] = "54321" But s[len(s):0:-1] = "5432" Why? What's the difference? What number then can I use as the end of the slice if I were to supply all 3 parameters? -1. Reinhold Jul 19 '05 #2

 P: n/a Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote: ATSkyWalker wrote:What's the difference between these 2 statements?If you have a String s="12345"s[len(s)::-1] = "54321"Buts[len(s):0:-1] = "5432"Why? What's the difference? What number then can I use as the end ofthe slice if I were to supply all 3 parameters? -1. -len(s) or less. -1 will return an empty string. Actually you start from len(s)-1 (len(s) is not an index in s) and you stop when you reach the index specified (or the end). Since -1 is the same index as the starting one (-1~>len(s)-1, -2~>len(s)-2, -len(s)+1~>0), you end up with an empty string. Therefore you have to try to reach indices lower (due to the negative step) than the minimum valid index of your list in order to reverse it fully. Jul 19 '05 #3

 P: n/a s[len(s):-1:-1] yields an empty list ! Test code : s = "12345" print s[len(s)::-1] -> prints "54321" print s[len(s):-1:-1] -> prints "" (nothing) Jul 19 '05 #4

 P: n/a tiissa wrote: Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote: ATSkyWalker wrote:What's the difference between these 2 statements?If you have a String s="12345"s[len(s)::-1] = "54321"Buts[len(s):0:-1] = "5432"Why? What's the difference? What number then can I use as the end ofthe slice if I were to supply all 3 parameters? -1. -len(s) or less. -1 will return an empty string. Actually you start from len(s)-1 (len(s) is not an index in s) and you stop when you reach the index specified (or the end). Since -1 is the same index as the starting one (-1~>len(s)-1, -2~>len(s)-2, -len(s)+1~>0), you end up with an empty string. Therefore you have to try to reach indices lower (due to the negative step) than the minimum valid index of your list in order to reverse it fully. Right, sorry. Well, I guess that's why one can leave out the index... Reinhold Jul 19 '05 #5

 P: n/a I'm sorry, I'm not really following your logic. Can you supply the statement with the three parameters ? so if I want to reverse it fully using s[len(s)-1:x:-1] what would x be or is it impossible to express it in this way ? Thanks, AT Jul 19 '05 #6

 P: n/a ah****@gmail.com wrote: so if I want to reverse it fully using s[len(s)-1:x:-1] what would x be or is it impossible to express it in this way ? This does not work for integers, because the theoretically correct value x = -1 already has another interpretation as the gap between the last and the last but one character. Here are two workarounds: 1. Set x to None s = "12345" s[len(s):None:-1] '54321' 2. Separate slicing operation and reversal: s = "12345" s[0:len(s)][::-1] '54321' Peter Jul 19 '05 #7

 P: n/a Peter, I like the way you put it "the gap between the last and the last but one character" :-). I guess this is a side effect of of python's asymetric slice indexing approach which takes a little getting used to. AT Jul 19 '05 #8

 P: n/a ah****@gmail.com wrote: I'm sorry, I'm not really following your logic. Can you supply the statement with the three parameters ? so if I want to reverse it fully using s[len(s)-1:x:-1] what would x be or is it impossible to express it in this way ? Contrary to what I said above x should be _strictly_ less than -len(s). You stop when you reach in the list the given end index (and don't take the item there) or if you leave the index range. But -1 as an index is the same as (len(s)-1). Therefore going from len(s)-1 down to -1 is the same as going from len(s)-1 to len(s)-1 hence an empty list. And -len(s) is the same as 0 (my mistake above) But -len(s)-1 is not in the list thus you won't discard any limit. The example: In : s='12345' In : s[len(s)-1:0:-1] Out: '5432' In : s[len(s)-1:-1:-1] Out: '' In : s[-1],s[len(s)-1] Out: ('5', '5') In : s[len(s)-1:-len(s)-1:-1] Out: '54321' In : s[len(s)-1:-len(s):-1] Out: '5432' Jul 19 '05 #9

 P: n/a Peter Otten wrote: ah****@gmail.com wrote:so if I want to reverse it fully using s[len(s)-1:x:-1] what would x beor is it impossible to express it in this way ? This does not work for integers, because the theoretically correct value x = -1 already has another interpretation as the gap between the last and the last but one character. AFAIK, it is not an issue of integer (what else can an slice index be in python?) but simply of index aliasing. For x=-len(s)-1, you get the whole reversed list: In : s[len(s)-1:-len(s)-1:-1] Out: '54321' Jul 19 '05 #10

 P: n/a tiissa wrote: Peter Otten wrote: ah****@gmail.com wrote:so if I want to reverse it fully using s[len(s)-1:x:-1] what would x beor is it impossible to express it in this way ? This does not work for integers, because the theoretically correct value x = -1 already has another interpretation as the gap between the last and the last but one character. AFAIK, it is not an issue of integer (what else can an slice index be in python?) but simply of index aliasing. For x=-len(s)-1, you get the whole reversed list: In : s[len(s)-1:-len(s)-1:-1] Out: '54321' Clever. I didn't think of that. Still, for practical purposes you have to test for slicelen >= stringlen, so whether you choose None, -len(s)-1, or -sys.maxint as the second slice parameter doesn't matter much. Peter Jul 19 '05 #11

 P: n/a Peter Otten wrote: Still, for practical purposes you have to test for slicelen >= stringlen, so whether you choose None, -len(s)-1, or -sys.maxint as the second slice parameter doesn't matter much. Sure, for practical purposes you don't bother to write extra characters and leave it void. But we knew it from the start of the thread. ;) Jul 19 '05 #12

### This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion. 