I have the following code and for the sake of learning would like to see a more pythonic way of achieving this:
for value in response.values():
for encod in encodings:
if encod.lower() in value.lower():
return(encod)
Add a comment
|
5 Answers
Assuming that you actually intend to return only the first match you find (which is what your code does), there's nothing unpythonic about your code except the unnecessary parentheses in the last line, which you can replace with:
return encod
Pythonic does not mean 'write a one-liner' or 'use a particular feature of Python for the sake of it'. It means, among other things, 'write your code in the most easily-understood and expressive way that you can'.
See also: the Zen of Python
3 Comments
arynhard
If you didn't see it, here it is again: 'for the sake of learning'. I agree with you, but would like to learn how to achieve this if in other ways.
Zero Piraeus
@user1991424 I did see it, yes. I also saw that you asked for 'a more pythonic way' of writing your code. Part of learning that is learning what the word pythonic means.
DSM
@user1991424: you also said you'd "like to see a more pythonic way of achieving this". That's very different from "in other ways", if the other ways are less Pythonic.
If you're looking for a different way, you can use this:
return next(encod for value in response.values()
for encod in encodings
if encod.lower() in value.lower())
The portion within next(...) is a generator expression that yields each encod in encodings for each value in response.values() if the condition encod.lower() in value.lower() is satisfied. The first element of this generator is what we return (see next()).
Although, in practice, I would generally go with what you already have. It's the simplest and clearest way to do what you are trying to do, and is by no means unpythonic.
8 Comments
arynhard
NameError: global name 'encod' is not defined
JoshG79
I think you reversed the order of the loops, which should be fine since we only want the first one, but it's worth clarifying because the syntax of the double comprehensions is so confusing.
arshajii
@user1991424 Are you sure that's happening on the return line?
arynhard
ahhhh, thank you. I have been trying to learn when/how to use the next() function. Thank you! +1 for not scolding me and teaching me.
Marcin
-1 This is hardly more idiomatic - it has no benefits in terms of readability or efficiency.
|
Your code will only return the first matching instance, but you could still use a list comprehension or better, a generator expression.
return next(v for v in response.values() if v.lower in map(lower, encodings))
1 Comment
arynhard
getting
AttributeError: 'generator' object has no attribute 'next'Are you OK with outputting it as a list? A list comprehension would make it more Pythonic.
return [encod for value in response.values() for encod in encodings if encod.lower() in value.lower()]
3 Comments
arynhard
It would have to be a str, I could use loop through the list after returning it but ideally, just astring
Al.Sal
What exactly do you mean @user1991424? This would add each
encod that matches your criteria to a list that you could then .join() if you'd like?arynhard
In my response.values(), I know that there can only be at most one encod to be matched in encodings. I would need to only return the first match.
Just to offer another approach using a Cartesian product. I like this because it matches the way I would think: "check every pair of values."
import itertools
for (encoding, value) in itertools.product(encodings, response.values()):
if encoding.lower() in value.lower():
return encoding
