Python set variables to shorter list and list length
$begingroup$
I have a simple task that I can't find an elegant solution to. Say I have two arrays and I want to find which one is shorter and create variables for both their lengths (specifying them as long and short). Here's an inelegant way to do it:
l1 = len(arr1)
l2 = len(arr2)
if l1 < l2:
short_arr = arr1
long_arr = arr2
lshort = l1
llong = l2
else:
short_arr = arr2
long_arr = arr1
lshort = l2
llong = l1
What's a better way to do it?
python
asked 59 mins ago
jss367jss367
18629
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a simple task that I can't find an elegant solution to. Say I have two arrays and I want to find which one is shorter and create variables for both their lengths (specifying them as long and short). Here's an inelegant way to do it:
l1 = len(arr1)
l2 = len(arr2)
if l1 < l2:
short_arr = arr1
long_arr = arr2
lshort = l1
llong = l2
else:
short_arr = arr2
long_arr = arr1
lshort = l2
llong = l1
What's a better way to do it?
python
asked 59 mins ago
jss367jss367
18629
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a simple task that I can't find an elegant solution to. Say I have two arrays and I want to find which one is shorter and create variables for both their lengths (specifying them as long and short). Here's an inelegant way to do it:
l1 = len(arr1)
l2 = len(arr2)
if l1 < l2:
short_arr = arr1
long_arr = arr2
lshort = l1
llong = l2
else:
short_arr = arr2
long_arr = arr1
lshort = l2
llong = l1
What's a better way to do it?
python
asked 59 mins ago
jss367jss367
18629
$endgroup$
I have a simple task that I can't find an elegant solution to. Say I have two arrays and I want to find which one is shorter and create variables for both their lengths (specifying them as long and short). Here's an inelegant way to do it:
l1 = len(arr1)
l2 = len(arr2)
if l1 < l2:
short_arr = arr1
long_arr = arr2
lshort = l1
llong = l2
else:
short_arr = arr2
long_arr = arr1
lshort = l2
llong = l1
What's a better way to do it?
python
python
asked 59 mins ago
jss367jss367
18629
asked 59 mins ago
jss367jss367
18629
asked 59 mins ago
jss367jss367
18629
asked 59 mins ago
jss367jss367
18629
asked 59 mins ago
jss367jss367
18629
18629
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There is nothing inelegant about your code. You are computing the length of each array exactly once, have one test, and assign variables in each of the two paths of the branch. It is clean, fast, and efficient.
You could make it shorter by combining the assignments into structured assignment statement:
l1, l2 = len(arr1), len(arr2)
if l1 < l2:
short_arr, long_arr = arr1, arr2
lshort, llong = l1, l2
else:
short_arr, long_arr = arr2, arr1
lshort, llong = l2, l1
but it is debatable whether that is clearer.
I can’t claim this is more elegant, but it is significantly shorter:
short_arr, long_arr = (arr1, arr2) if len(arr1) < len(arr2) else (arr2, arr1)
lshort, llong = len(short_arr), len(long_arr)
And the absolutely wrong way to do it would be:
((lshort, short_arr), (llong, long_arr)) = sorted([(len(arr1), arr1), (len(arr2), arr2)])
answered 46 mins ago
AJNeufeldAJNeufeld
4,727318
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f212501%2fpython-set-variables-to-shorter-list-and-list-length%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There is nothing inelegant about your code. You are computing the length of each array exactly once, have one test, and assign variables in each of the two paths of the branch. It is clean, fast, and efficient.
You could make it shorter by combining the assignments into structured assignment statement:
l1, l2 = len(arr1), len(arr2)
if l1 < l2:
short_arr, long_arr = arr1, arr2
lshort, llong = l1, l2
else:
short_arr, long_arr = arr2, arr1
lshort, llong = l2, l1
but it is debatable whether that is clearer.
I can’t claim this is more elegant, but it is significantly shorter:
short_arr, long_arr = (arr1, arr2) if len(arr1) < len(arr2) else (arr2, arr1)
lshort, llong = len(short_arr), len(long_arr)
And the absolutely wrong way to do it would be:
((lshort, short_arr), (llong, long_arr)) = sorted([(len(arr1), arr1), (len(arr2), arr2)])
answered 46 mins ago
AJNeufeldAJNeufeld
4,727318
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is nothing inelegant about your code. You are computing the length of each array exactly once, have one test, and assign variables in each of the two paths of the branch. It is clean, fast, and efficient.
You could make it shorter by combining the assignments into structured assignment statement:
l1, l2 = len(arr1), len(arr2)
if l1 < l2:
short_arr, long_arr = arr1, arr2
lshort, llong = l1, l2
else:
short_arr, long_arr = arr2, arr1
lshort, llong = l2, l1
but it is debatable whether that is clearer.
I can’t claim this is more elegant, but it is significantly shorter:
short_arr, long_arr = (arr1, arr2) if len(arr1) < len(arr2) else (arr2, arr1)
lshort, llong = len(short_arr), len(long_arr)
And the absolutely wrong way to do it would be:
((lshort, short_arr), (llong, long_arr)) = sorted([(len(arr1), arr1), (len(arr2), arr2)])
answered 46 mins ago
AJNeufeldAJNeufeld
4,727318
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is nothing inelegant about your code. You are computing the length of each array exactly once, have one test, and assign variables in each of the two paths of the branch. It is clean, fast, and efficient.
You could make it shorter by combining the assignments into structured assignment statement:
l1, l2 = len(arr1), len(arr2)
if l1 < l2:
short_arr, long_arr = arr1, arr2
lshort, llong = l1, l2
else:
short_arr, long_arr = arr2, arr1
lshort, llong = l2, l1
but it is debatable whether that is clearer.
I can’t claim this is more elegant, but it is significantly shorter:
short_arr, long_arr = (arr1, arr2) if len(arr1) < len(arr2) else (arr2, arr1)
lshort, llong = len(short_arr), len(long_arr)
And the absolutely wrong way to do it would be:
((lshort, short_arr), (llong, long_arr)) = sorted([(len(arr1), arr1), (len(arr2), arr2)])
answered 46 mins ago
AJNeufeldAJNeufeld
4,727318
$endgroup$
There is nothing inelegant about your code. You are computing the length of each array exactly once, have one test, and assign variables in each of the two paths of the branch. It is clean, fast, and efficient.
You could make it shorter by combining the assignments into structured assignment statement:
l1, l2 = len(arr1), len(arr2)
if l1 < l2:
short_arr, long_arr = arr1, arr2
lshort, llong = l1, l2
else:
short_arr, long_arr = arr2, arr1
lshort, llong = l2, l1
but it is debatable whether that is clearer.
I can’t claim this is more elegant, but it is significantly shorter:
short_arr, long_arr = (arr1, arr2) if len(arr1) < len(arr2) else (arr2, arr1)
lshort, llong = len(short_arr), len(long_arr)
And the absolutely wrong way to do it would be:
((lshort, short_arr), (llong, long_arr)) = sorted([(len(arr1), arr1), (len(arr2), arr2)])
answered 46 mins ago
AJNeufeldAJNeufeld
4,727318
edited 22 mins ago
answered 46 mins ago
AJNeufeldAJNeufeld
4,727318
answered 46 mins ago
AJNeufeldAJNeufeld
4,727318
answered 46 mins ago
AJNeufeldAJNeufeld
4,727318
4,727318
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f212501%2fpython-set-variables-to-shorter-list-and-list-length%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
