Hi,
If I have a number n and want to generate a list based on like the
following:
def f(n):
l=[]
while n>0:
l.append(n%26)
n /=26
return l
I am wondering what is the 'functional' way to do the same.
Thanks,
beginner 11 1135
beginner <zy*******@gmail.comwrites:
def f(n):
l=[]
while n>0:
l.append(n%26)
n /=26
return l
I am wondering what is the 'functional' way to do the same.
If you're trying to learn functional programming, maybe you should use
a functional language like Haskell or Scheme. But anyway you might be
thinking of something like:
def f(n):
def mseq(n):
while n 0:
n,a = divmod(n, 26)
yield a
return list(mseq(n))
The above is not really "functional", but it's a reasonably natural
Python style, at least for me.
On Jul 30, 3:48 pm, beginner <zyzhu2...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
If I have a number n and want to generate a list based on like the
following:
def f(n):
l=[]
while n>0:
l.append(n%26)
n /=26
return l
I am wondering what is the 'functional' way to do the same.
Recursion is common in functional programming:
def f(n, l=None):
if l == None:
l = []
if n 0:
return f(n/26, l + [n%26])
else:
return l
print f(1000)
--
Hope this helps,
Steven
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:48:10 +0000, beginner wrote:
Hi,
If I have a number n and want to generate a list based on like the
following:
def f(n):
l=[]
while n>0:
l.append(n%26)
n /=26
return l
I am wondering what is the 'functional' way to do the same.
Seems like a perfectly good function to me :)
I don't know about "functional", but that's crying out to be written as a
generator:
def f(n):
while n 0:
n, x = divmod(n, 26)
yield x
And in use:
>>for x in f(1000):
.... print x
....
12
12
1
>>list(f(1000))
[12, 12, 1]
--
Steven.
James Stroud <js*****@mbi.ucla.eduwrites:
def f(n):
if n>0:
yield n%26
for i in f(n/26):
yield i
Right, this mutates i though. Let's say we have a library function
itertools.iterate() and that we ignore (as we do with functions like
"map") that it uses mutation under the clothes:
def iterate(f, x):
# generate the infinite sequence x, f(x), f(f(x)), ...
while True:
yield x
x = f(x)
Then we could write:
from itertools import imap, takewhile
def snd((a,b)): return b
def f(n):
return takewhile(bool,
imap(snd,
iterate(lambda (a,b): divmod(a,26),
divmod(n,26))))
Considering I am a beginner I did a little test. Funny results too. The
function I proposed (lists1.py) took 11.4529998302 seconds, while the
other one (lists2.py) took 16.1410000324 seconds, thats about 40% more.
They were run in IDLE from their own windows (F5).
Of course my little test may me wrong (just started with this language),
in which case I would appreciate any corrections, or comments.
------------------------------------------------
lists1.py :
def f(n):
if n 0:
return ([n%26] + f(n/26))
else:
return []
import time
start = time.time()
for x in range(1,1000000):
f(2100000000)
end = time.time()
print end - start
-----------------------------------------------
lists2.py :
def f(n):
def mseq(n):
while n 0:
n,a = divmod(n, 26)
yield a
return list(mseq(n))
import time
start = time.time()
for x in range(1,1000000):
f(2100000000)
end = time.time()
print end - start
------------------------------------------------
Kept testing (just in case).
There was this other version of lists2.py (see below). So I created
lists3.py and lists4.py.
The resulting times are
lists1.py : 11.4529998302
lists2.py : 16.1410000324
lists3.py : 3.17199993134
lists4.py : 20.9839999676
lists3.py is by far the better time, but it does not generate a list but
a generator object, as soon as you make it into a list (lists4.py) times
go up (I don't know why do they go up that much). Apparently the way you
use the conversion to a list, in the function(lists2.py) or in the loop
(lists4.py), makes a big difference. Anyway lists1.py is still the best
of the list generating times, and (in my view) the most elegant and easy
to understand expression of the algorithm.
------------------------------------------------
lists1.py :
def f(n):
if n 0:
return ([n%26] + f(n/26))
else:
return []
import time
start = time.time()
for x in range(1,1000000):
f(2100000000)
end = time.time()
print end - start
-----------------------------------------------
lists2.py :
def f(n):
def mseq(n):
while n 0:
n,a = divmod(n, 26)
yield a
return list(mseq(n))
import time
start = time.time()
for x in range(1,1000000):
f(2100000000)
end = time.time()
print end - start
------------------------------------------------
lists3.py
def f(n):
if n>0:
yield n%26
for i in f(n/26):
yield i
import time
start = time.time()
for x in range(1,1000000):
f(2100000000)
end = time.time()
print end - start
------------------------------------------------
lists4.py
def f(n):
if n>0:
yield n%26
for i in f(n/26):
yield i
import time
start = time.time()
for x in range(1,1000000):
list(f(2100000000))
end = time.time()
print end - start
----------------------------------------------------
On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, beginner <zyzhu2...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
If I have a number n and want to generate a list based on like the
following:
def f(n):
l=[]
while n>0:
l.append(n%26)
n /=26
return l
I am wondering what is the 'functional' way to do the same.
Thanks,
beginner
I see. It is interesting (and not surprisingly) that recursion or
yield are required. Thanks for everyone's help.
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:01:42 -0300, Ricardo Aroz wrote:
Considering I am a beginner I did a little test. Funny results too. The
function I proposed (lists1.py) took 11.4529998302 seconds, while the
other one (lists2.py) took 16.1410000324 seconds, thats about 40% more.
They were run in IDLE from their own windows (F5).
[snip code]
You may find that using the timeit module is better than rolling your own
timer.
>>def recursive_func(n):
.... if n 0:
.... return [n % 26] + recursive_func(n/26)
.... else:
.... return []
....
>>def generator_func(n):
.... def mseq(n):
.... while n 0:
.... n, a = divmod(n, 26)
.... yield a
.... return list(mseq(n))
....
>>> import timeit N = 10**6+1 timeit.Timer("recursive_func(N)",
.... "from __main__ import N, recursive_func").repeat()
[16.48972487449646, 17.000514984130859, 16.520529985427856]
>>> timeit.Timer("generator_func(N)",
.... "from __main__ import N, generator_func").repeat()
[27.938560009002686, 28.970781087875366, 23.977837085723877]
If you're going to compare speeds, you should also test this one:
>>def procedural_func(n):
.... results = []
.... while n 0:
.... n, a = divmod(n, 26)
.... results.append(a)
.... return results
....
>>> timeit.Timer("procedural_func(N)",
.... "from __main__ import N, procedural_func").repeat()
[15.577107906341553, 15.60145378112793, 15.345284938812256]
I must admit that I'm surprised at how well the recursive version did, and
how slow the generator-based version was. But I'd be careful about drawing
grand conclusions about the general speed of recursion etc. in Python from
this one single example. I think this is simply because the examples tried
make so few recursive calls. Consider instead an example that makes a few
more calls:
>>N = 26**100 + 1
timeit.Timer("recursive_func(N)",
.... "from __main__ import N, recursive_func").repeat(3, 10000)
[7.0015969276428223, 7.6065640449523926, 6.8495190143585205]
>>timeit.Timer("generator_func(N)",
.... "from __main__ import N, generator_func").repeat(3, 10000)
[3.56563401222229, 3.1132731437683105, 3.8274538516998291]
>>timeit.Timer("procedural_func(N)",
.... "from __main__ import N, procedural_func").repeat(3, 10000)
[3.3509068489074707, 4.0872640609741211, 3.3742849826812744]
--
Steven.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:01:42 -0300, Ricardo Aroz wrote:
>Considering I am a beginner I did a little test. Funny results too. The function I proposed (lists1.py) took 11.4529998302 seconds, while the other one (lists2.py) took 16.1410000324 seconds, thats about 40% more. They were run in IDLE from their own windows (F5).
[snip code]
You may find that using the timeit module is better than rolling your own
timer.
>>>def recursive_func(n):
... if n 0:
... return [n % 26] + recursive_func(n/26)
... else:
... return []
...
>>>def generator_func(n):
... def mseq(n):
... while n 0:
... n, a = divmod(n, 26)
... yield a
... return list(mseq(n))
...
>>>import timeit N = 10**6+1 timeit.Timer("recursive_func(N)",
... "from __main__ import N, recursive_func").repeat()
[16.48972487449646, 17.000514984130859, 16.520529985427856]
>>>timeit.Timer("generator_func(N)",
... "from __main__ import N, generator_func").repeat()
[27.938560009002686, 28.970781087875366, 23.977837085723877]
If you're going to compare speeds, you should also test this one:
>>>def procedural_func(n):
... results = []
... while n 0:
... n, a = divmod(n, 26)
... results.append(a)
... return results
...
>>>timeit.Timer("procedural_func(N)",
... "from __main__ import N, procedural_func").repeat()
[15.577107906341553, 15.60145378112793, 15.345284938812256]
I must admit that I'm surprised at how well the recursive version did, and
how slow the generator-based version was. But I'd be careful about drawing
grand conclusions about the general speed of recursion etc. in Python from
this one single example. I think this is simply because the examples tried
make so few recursive calls. Consider instead an example that makes a few
more calls:
>>>N = 26**100 + 1
timeit.Timer("recursive_func(N)",
... "from __main__ import N, recursive_func").repeat(3, 10000)
[7.0015969276428223, 7.6065640449523926, 6.8495190143585205]
>>>timeit.Timer("generator_func(N)",
... "from __main__ import N, generator_func").repeat(3, 10000)
[3.56563401222229, 3.1132731437683105, 3.8274538516998291]
>>>timeit.Timer("procedural_func(N)",
... "from __main__ import N, procedural_func").repeat(3, 10000)
[3.3509068489074707, 4.0872640609741211, 3.3742849826812744]
Yup! As soon as the size of the list increases the generator function
gets better (50% in my tests). But it's interesting to note that if the
list is within certain limits (I've tested integers (i.e. 2,100,000,000
=7 member list)) and you only vary the times the funct. is called then
the recursive one does better.
beginner <zy*******@gmail.comwrites:
Hi,
If I have a number n and want to generate a list based on like the
following:
def f(n):
l=[]
while n>0:
l.append(n%26)
n /=26
return l
I am wondering what is the 'functional' way to do the same.
This is very 'functional' (and also quite concise):
f = compose(list,partial(unfold, divmod(_,26)))
The definitions of compose, unfold, and _ are left as excercises (of
increasing difficulty) for the reader.
'as
On 7/31/07, Ricardo Aroz <ri******@gmail.comwrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:01:42 -0300, Ricardo Aroz wrote:
Considering I am a beginner I did a little test. Funny results too. The
function I proposed (lists1.py) took 11.4529998302 seconds, while the
other one (lists2.py) took 16.1410000324 seconds, thats about 40% more..
They were run in IDLE from their own windows (F5).
[snip code]
You may find that using the timeit module is better than rolling your own
timer.
>>def recursive_func(n):
... if n 0:
... return [n % 26] + recursive_func(n/26)
... else:
... return []
...
>>def generator_func(n):
... def mseq(n):
... while n 0:
... n, a = divmod(n, 26)
... yield a
... return list(mseq(n))
...
>>import timeit N = 10**6+1 timeit.Timer("recursive_func(N)",
... "from __main__ import N, recursive_func").repeat()
[16.48972487449646, 17.000514984130859, 16.520529985427856]
>>timeit.Timer("generator_func(N)",
... "from __main__ import N, generator_func").repeat()
[27.938560009002686, 28.970781087875366, 23.977837085723877]
If you're going to compare speeds, you should also test this one:
>>def procedural_func(n):
... results = []
... while n 0:
... n, a = divmod(n, 26)
... results.append(a)
... return results
...
>>timeit.Timer("procedural_func(N)",
... "from __main__ import N, procedural_func").repeat()
[15.577107906341553, 15.60145378112793, 15.345284938812256]
I must admit that I'm surprised at how well the recursive version did, and
how slow the generator-based version was. But I'd be careful about drawing
grand conclusions about the general speed of recursion etc. in Python from
this one single example. I think this is simply because the examples tried
make so few recursive calls. Consider instead an example that makes a few
more calls:
>>N = 26**100 + 1
timeit.Timer("recursive_func(N)",
... "from __main__ import N, recursive_func").repeat(3, 10000)
[7.0015969276428223, 7.6065640449523926, 6.8495190143585205]
>>timeit.Timer("generator_func(N)",
... "from __main__ import N, generator_func").repeat(3, 10000)
[3.56563401222229, 3.1132731437683105, 3.8274538516998291]
>>timeit.Timer("procedural_func(N)",
... "from __main__ import N, procedural_func").repeat(3, 10000)
[3.3509068489074707, 4.0872640609741211, 3.3742849826812744]
Yup! As soon as the size of the list increases the generator function
gets better (50% in my tests). But it's interesting to note that if the
list is within certain limits (I've tested integers (i.e. 2,100,000,000
=7 member list)) and you only vary the times the funct. is called then
the recursive one does better.
Not especially surprising. Suspending and resuming a generator is
naturally more expensive than a single function call. The advantages
of generators are time/space tradeoffs, greater expressiveness, and
state preservation (not used here). This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Ville Vainio |
last post by:
I don't know if you have seen this before, but here goes:
http://text.userlinux.com/white_paper.html
There is a jab at Python, though, mentioning that Ruby is more
"refined".
--
Ville...
|
by: Christian Seberino |
last post by:
How does Ruby compare to Python?? How good is DESIGN of Ruby compared to Python?
Python's design is godly. I'm wondering if Ruby's is godly too.
I've heard it has solid OOP design but then...
|
by: Matt |
last post by:
I have 2 questions:
1. strlen returns an unsigned (size_t) quantity. Why is an unsigned
value more approprate than a signed value? Why is unsighned value less
appropriate?
2. Would there...
|
by: Xah Lee |
last post by:
in March, i posted a essay “What is Expressiveness in a Computer
Language”, archived at:
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/what_is_expresiveness.html
I was informed then that there is a academic...
|
by: Sarath |
last post by:
What's the advantage of using for_each than the normal iteration using
for loop?
Is there any 'tweak' to use stream objects as 'Function' parameter of
for_each loop. Seems copy function can do...
|
by: WaterWalk |
last post by:
I've just read an article "Building Robust System" by Gerald Jay
Sussman. The article is here:
http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/classes/symbolic/spring07/readings/robust-systems.pdf
In it there is a...
|
by: Franz Steinhusler |
last post by:
Hello NG,
wWhat are the best programs in your opinion, written entirly
in pyhton, divided into categories like:
a) Games
b) Utilities/System
c) Office
d) Web/Newsreader/Mail/Browser
....
|
by: BorisBoshond |
last post by:
Hi all,
Hope someone is able and willing to help me with following problem.
I received a xsd file from another company, our company i supposed to return xml based on that xsd.
Problem is that I...
|
by: vippstar |
last post by:
On Nov 17, 1:43 pm, Ertugrul Sylemez <e...@ertes.dewrote:
Well your blog entry starts with
which is untrue and a bad way to start an article.
Reading further, in your code...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
| |