I have this code:
type1 = [0]
type2 = [0]
type3 = [0]
map = {0:type1, 1:type1, 2:type3, 3:type1, 4:type2} # the real map is
longer than this
def increment(value):
map[value][0] += 1
increment(1)
increment(1)
increment(0)
increment(4)
#increment will actually be called many times through
Just forget the lists...
counters = {0:0, 1:0, 2:0, 3:0, 4:0}
def increment(value):
counters[value] += 1
increment(1)
increment(1)
increment(3)
increment(4)
print counters[0]
>>> 0
print counters[1]
>>> 2
print coutners[2]
>>> 0
print counters[3]
>>> 1
print coutners[4]
>>> 1
The increment
Rob Cowie wrote:
> Just forget the lists...
> counters = {0:0, 1:0, 2:0, 3:0, 4:0}
Or perhaps just use a list:
>>> counters = [0,0,0,0]
>>> def inc(v):
... counters[v] += 1
...
>>> inc(1)
>>> inc(1)
>>> inc(3)
>>> counters
[0, 2, 0, 1]
> The increment function should probably include a try:..
Thomas Nelson wrote:
> I have this code:
> type1 = [0]
> type2 = [0]
> type3 = [0]
> map = {0:type1, 1:type1, 2:type3, 3:type1, 4:type2} # the real map is
> longer than this
>
> def increment(value):
> map[value][0] += 1
>
> increment(1)
> increment(1)
> increment(0)
> increment(4)
> #increm
> Just forget the lists...
>
> counters = {0:0, 1:0, 2:0, 3:0, 4:0}
You'll notice that the OP's code had multiple references to the
same counter (0, 1, and 3 all mapped to type1)
The OP's method was about as good as it gets. One might try to
redo it with an accumulator class of some sort:
cl
Thomas Nelson wrote:
> This is exactly what I want to do: every time I encounter this kind of
> value in my code, increment the appropriate type by one. Then I'd like
> to go back and find out how many of each type there were. This way
> I've written seems simple enough and effective, but it's ve
Thomas Nelson wrote:
> I have this code:
> type1 = [0]
> type2 = [0]
> type3 = [0]
> map = {0:type1, 1:type1, 2:type3, 3:type1, 4:type2}
Warning : you're shadowing the builtin map() function.
> # the real map is
> longer than this
>
> def increment(value):
> map[value][0] += 1
>
> incre
Thomas Nelson wrote:
> I have this code:
> type1 = [0]
> type2 = [0]
> type3 = [0]
> map = {0:type1, 1:type1, 2:type3, 3:type1, 4:type2} # the real map is
> longer than this
>
> def increment(value):
> map[value][0] += 1
>
> increment(1)
> increment(1)
> increment(0)
> increment(4)
> #incre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> if histogram.has_key(s):
> histogram[s] += 1
> else:
> histogram[s] = 1
I wonder if
histogram[s] = histogram.get(s, 0) + 1
would be more efficient...
Cheers,
--
Klaus Alexander Seistrup
Thomas Nelson wrote:
> I have this code:
> type1 = [0]
> type2 = [0]
> type3 = [0]
> map = {0:type1, 1:type1, 2:type3, 3:type1, 4:type2} # the real map is
> longer than this
>
> def increment(value):
> map[value][0] += 1
>
> increment(1)
> increment(1)
> increment(0)
> increment(4)
> #increment
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Nelson wrote:
> This is exactly what I want to do: every time I encounter this kind of
> value in my code, increment the appropriate type by one. Then I'd like
> to go back and find out how many of each type there were. This way
> I've written seems simple e
Tim Chase wrote:
>
> You'll notice that the OP's code had multiple references to the
> same counter (0, 1, and 3 all mapped to type1)
>
> The OP's method was about as good as it gets. One might try to
D'oh! Didn't notice that.
Yeah, Thomas, if you really do want more than "type code" (i.e. k
Thanks to everyone who posted. First, I don't think my question was
clear enough: Rob Cowie, Ant, Simon Forman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], and Jon
Ribbens offered solutions that don't quite work as-is, because I need
multiple values to map to a single type. Tim Chase and Bruno
Destuilliers both offer ver
No, your question was clear. With hindsght and a more thorough read of
your post I see my error ;^)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Thomas Nelson wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who posted. First, I don't think my question was
> clear enough: Rob Cowie, Ant, Simon Forman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], and Jon
> Ribbens offered solutions that don't quite work as-is, because I need
> multiple values to map to a single type. Tim Chase and Brun
Peter Otten a écrit :
(snip)
> I don't think your code is ugly. Anyway, here are two more alternatives:
>
>
types = [0] * 3
dispatch = [0, 0, 2, 0, 1]
for value in [1, 1, 0, 4]:
> ... types[dispatch[value]] += 1
> ...
>
types
>
> [3, 1, 0]
I wonder why I'm still pretendin
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rob Cowie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just forget the lists...
>
>counters = {0:0, 1:0, 2:0, 3:0, 4:0}
>
>def increment(value):
>counters[value] += 1
>
>increment(1)
>increment(1)
>increment(3)
>increment(4)
>
>print counters[0]
0
>print counters[1]
2
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
