adding vectors

Hi, Short question: why (1,abc,0.3)+(2,def,10.2) != (3,abcdef,10.5)? How to elegantly achieve (3,abcdef,10.5) as a result of addition ... Andy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: adding vectors

Andy Leszczynski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Short question: why (1,abc,0.3)+(2,def,10.2) != (3,abcdef,10.5)? How to elegantly achieve (3,abcdef,10.5) as a result of addition ... tuple([(a+b) for a,b in zip((1,abc,0.3),(2,def,10.2))]) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: adding vectors

Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andy Leszczynski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Short question: why (1,abc,0.3)+(2,def,10.2) != (3,abcdef,10.5)? How to elegantly achieve (3,abcdef,10.5) as a result of addition ... tuple([(a+b) for a,b in zip((1,abc,0.3),(2,def,10.2))])

Re: adding vectors

Andy Leszczynski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Short question: why (1,abc,0.3)+(2,def,10.2) != (3,abcdef,10.5)? Because '+' applied to sequences means to concatenate them -- a more frequent need than element by element addition (which I notice you would NOT want to apply to strings, only to

Re: adding vectors

Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: map(operator.add, (1, abc, 0.3), (2, def, 10.2)) [3, 'abcdef', 10.5] Not having to do the zip is win. operator.add is a lose. I'm not sure either is what I'd call elegant. Yeah, I didn't bother checking whether you could pass dyadic functions to map.

Re: adding vectors

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:06:31 -0500 Andy Leszczynski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Short question: why (1,abc,0.3)+(2,def,10.2) != (3,abcdef,10.5)? How to elegantly achieve (3,abcdef,10.5) as a result of addition ... (a,b,c) is a tuple, not a vector. IMHO, the elegant thing to do is to define a