Re: Searching for most pythonic/least stupid way to do something simple

Michael Torrie wrote: david jensen wrote: of course, changing nn's to: def getOutcomes(myList=[2,5,8,3,5]): low_id = int(myList[0]myList[1]) amountToShare = 2*myList[low_id] remainder = myList[not low_id]-myList[low_id] tail=list(myList[2:]) outcomes =

Searching for most pythonic/least stupid way to do something simple

Hi all, This may be a complete brainfart, but it's been puzzling me for a day or two (!). Sorry for not describing something in the subject, but it's hard to describe succinctly: I have a short list of non-zero positive integers (say myList=[2,5,8,3,5]). I need to return five lists of

Re: Searching for most pythonic/least stupid way to do something simple

... and of course i screwed up my outcomes... that should read outcomes=[[4,3,8,3,5],[3,4,8,3,5],[2,5,8,3,5],[1,6,8,3,5],[0,7,8,3,5]] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Searching for most pythonic/least stupid way to do something simple

david jensen wrote: ... and of course i screwed up my outcomes... that should read outcomes=[[4,3,8,3,5],[3,4,8,3,5],[2,5,8,3,5],[1,6,8,3,5],[0,7,8,3,5]] For starters: def getOutcomes(myList=[2,5,8,3,5]): low_id = int(myList[0]myList[1]) amountToShare = 2*myList[low_id] remainder =

Re: Searching for most pythonic/least stupid way to do something simple

david jensen wrote: ... and of course i screwed up my outcomes... that should read outcomes=[[4,3,8,3,5],[3,4,8,3,5],[2,5,8,3,5],[1,6,8,3,5],[0,7,8,3,5]] abstracting the given algorithm: def iterweights(N): d = 1.0/(N-1) for i in xrange(N): yield i*d, (N-1-i)*d def

Re: Searching for most pythonic/least stupid way to do something simple

Thank you both very much! Yeah: it was a total brainfart on my part: nn's solution should have been obvious. As the general solution, i like your approach, Gerard, but I think I'll stick to nn's, the one i should have written. Again, thank you both! dmj --

Re: Searching for most pythonic/least stupid way to do something simple

david jensen dmj@gmail.com writes: Obviously, i can just write the code again, in an else, switching indices 0 and 1. Or, I could just have a test at the beginning, switch them if they are in the order big, small, and then switch them again at the end in a list comprehension. Both ideas

Re: Searching for most pythonic/least stupid way to do something simple

Thanks Paul, but i don't immediately see how that helps (maybe I'm just being dense)... nn's solution, though i initially thought it worked, actually has a similar problem: intended: print getOutcomes([3,4,5,5]) [[6, 1, 5, 5], [4.5, 2.5, 5, 5], [3, 4, 5, 5], [1.5, 5.5, 5, 5], [0, 7, 5, 5]]

Re: Searching for most pythonic/least stupid way to do something simple

of course, changing nn's to: def getOutcomes(myList=[2,5,8,3,5]): low_id = int(myList[0]myList[1]) amountToShare = 2*myList[low_id] remainder = myList[not low_id]-myList[low_id] tail=list(myList[2:]) outcomes = [[amountToShare*perc, remainder+amountToShare*(1-perc)]+ tail for perc

Re: Searching for most pythonic/least stupid way to do something simple

david jensen wrote: of course, changing nn's to: def getOutcomes(myList=[2,5,8,3,5]): low_id = int(myList[0]myList[1]) amountToShare = 2*myList[low_id] remainder = myList[not low_id]-myList[low_id] tail=list(myList[2:]) outcomes = [[amountToShare*perc,

Re: Searching for most pythonic/least stupid way to do something simple

If Gerard's code works, I would consider it far superior to your code here. Pythonic does not necessarily mean short and ugly yes, I agree... and in my script i'm using something very like Gerard's (thanks again, Gerard). I just posted the corrected version of nn's because the original solved