While debugging a network algorithm in Python 2.6.2, I encountered
some strange behavior and was wondering whether it has to do with some
sort of code optimization that Python does behind the scenes.
After initialization: defaultdict(, {1: set([1])})
Popping and updating in two steps
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:43 PM, MRAB wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>>
>> Roy Hyunjin Han wrote:
>>>
>>> While debugging a network algorithm in Python 2.6.2, I encountered
>>> some strange behavior and was wondering whether it has to do with some
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> It follows the standard left-to-right evaluation order within an expression:
>
> ()
>
> (i.e. a function call always determines which function is going to be
> called before determining any arguments to be passed)
>
> Splitting it into two lin
I know that Python has iterator methods called "sorted" and "reversed" and
these are handy shortcuts.
Why not add a new iterator method called "shuffled"?
>>> for x in shuffled(range(5)):
>>>print x
>>> 3
>>> 1
>>> 2
>>> 0
>>> 4
Currently, a person has to do the following because random.sh
It would be convenient if replacing items in a dictionary returns the
new dictionary, in a manner analogous to str.replace(). What do you
think?
::
# Current behavior
x = {'key1': 1}
x.update(key1=3) == None
x == {'key1': 3} # Original variable has changed
# Possible behavior
2011/4/29 R. David Murray :
> 2011/4/29 Roy Hyunjin Han :
>> It would be convenient if replacing items in a dictionary returns the
>> new dictionary, in a manner analogous to str.replace()
>
> This belongs on python-ideas, but the short answer is no. The
> general languag
> You can implement this in your own subclass of dict, no?
Yes, I just thought it would be convenient to have in the language
itself, but the responses to my post seem to indicate that [not
returning the updated object] is an intended language feature for
mutable types like dict or list.
class
>> 2011/4/29 Roy Hyunjin Han :
>> It would be convenient if replacing items in a dictionary returns the
>> new dictionary, in a manner analogous to str.replace(). What do you
>> think?
>>
>># Current behavior
>>x = {'key1': 1}
