On 11/11/2022 20:58, Thomas Passin wrote:
On 11/11/2022 2:22 PM, Pancho via Python-list wrote:
On 11/11/2022 18:53, DFS wrote:
On 11/11/2022 12:49 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 02:22:34 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> declaimed the
following:
[(0,11), (1,1), (2,1),
(0,1) , (1,41), (2,2),
(0,9) , (1,3), (2,12)]
The set of values in elements[0] is {0,1,2}
I want the set of max values in elements[1]: {11,41,12}
Do they have to be IN THAT ORDER?
Yes.
Sets aren't ordered, which is why I gave my answer as a list. A
wrongly ordered list, but I thought it rude to point out my own error,
as no one else had. :-)
Assuming you want numeric order of element[0], rather than first
occurrence order of the element[0] in the original tuple list. In this
example, they are both the same.
Here is a corrected version
from collections import OrderedDict
def build_max_dict( tups):
dict = OrderedDict()
for (a,b) in tups:
if (a in dict):
if (b>dict[a]):
dict[a]=b
else:
dict[a]=b
return(dict.values())
This solution giving the answer as type odict_values. I'm not quite
sure what this type is, but it seems to be a
sequence/iterable/enumerable type, whatever the word is in Python.
Caveat: I know very little about Python.
Kindly do not use "dict" as a variable name, since that shadows the
system's built-in name for a dictionary type.
Yes, I half suspected it might cause subtle problems, I changed it to d,
and then I changed it back, senility I guess :-).
That was one of the things I didn't like about Python. Lack of types and
subsequent loss of intellisense is the thing I find hardest to deal with.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
