RetroSearch Browse

Wed Apr 5 08:08:05 CEST 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-April/063436.html

On Apr 4, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Jess Austin wrote:

> Alex wrote:
>> import collections
>> def tally(seq):
>>      d = collections.defaultdict(int)
>>      for item in seq:
>>          d[item] += 1
>>      return dict(d)
>
> I'll stop lurking and submit the following:
>
> def tally(seq):
>     return dict((group[0], len(tuple(group[1])))
>                 for group in itertools.groupby(sorted(seq)))
>
> In general itertools.groupby() seems like a very clean way to do this
> sort of thing, whether you want to end up with a dict or not.  I'll go
> so far as to suggest that the existence of groupby() obviates the
> proposed tally().  Maybe I've just coded too much SQL and it has  
> warped
> my brain...
>
> OTOH the latter definition of tally won't cope with iterables, and it
> seems like O(nlogn) rather than O(n).

It will cope with any iterable just fine (not sure why you think  
otherwise), but the major big-O impact seems to me to rule it out as  
a general solution.

Alex

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-April/063436.html below:

[Python-Dev] tally (and other accumulators)