Better way to negate a boolean list?

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Tr=E9mouilles?=]

Hi,

Is there any better (shorter) way to negate a boolean list than:

>>negated_boolean_list = [not elem for elem in boolean_list]

?

I tried:

>>map(not, boolean_list)

but it seems that "not" is not a function.

Thanks in advance,

David

[Paddy]

On Feb 10, 7:46 am, David Trémouilles <[e-mail]:

Hi,

Is there any better (shorter) way to negate a boolean list than:

>>negated_boolean_list = [not elem for elem in boolean_list]

?

I tried:

>>map(not, boolean_list)

but it seems that "not" is not a function.

Thanks in advance,

David

Try [not x for x in boolean_list]

- Paddy.

[Steve Holden]

Paddy wrote:

On Feb 10, 7:46 am, David Trémouilles <[e-mail]:

>Hi,

Is there any better (shorter) way to negate a boolean list than:

> >>negated_boolean_list = [not elem for elem in boolean_list]

?

I tried:

> >>map(not, boolean_list)

but it seems that "not" is not a function.

Thanks in advance,

David

Try [not x for x in boolean_list]

This six-character shortening by renaming the comprehension's bound
variable was a joke, right?

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/

[Paddy]

On Feb 10, 1:41 pm, Steve Holden <[e-mail]:

Paddy wrote:

On Feb 10, 7:46 am, David Trémouilles <[e-mail]:

Hi,

Is there any better (shorter) way to negate a boolean list than:
>>negated_boolean_list = [not elem for elem in boolean_list]
?

I tried:
>>map(not, boolean_list)
but it seems that "not" is not a function.

Thanks in advance,

David

Try [not x for x in boolean_list]

This six-character shortening by renaming the comprehension's bound
variable was a joke, right?

No,
Of course not!
It's much worse - I completely missed the line beginning negated_....
on
first and second reading.
I am indeed getting older, although I had thought I was way off my
dotage.

- Paddy.