Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> "Jim Jewett"
>> It isn't really stringiness that matters, it is that you have to
>> terminate even though you still have an iterable container.
>
> Well said.
>
>
>> Guido had at least a start in Searchable, back when ABC
>> were still in the sandbox:
>
> Have to disagree here. An object cannot know in general
> whether a flattener wants to split it or not. That is an application
> dependent decision. A better answer is be able to tell the
> flattener what should be considered atomic in a given circumstance.
>
>
> Raymond
A while back (a couple of years I think), we had a discussion on
python-list about flatten in which I posted the following version of a
flatten function. It turned out to be nearly twice as fast as any other
version.
def flatten(L):
""" Flatten a list in place. """
i = 0
while i < len(L):
while type(L[i]) is list:
L[i:i+1] = L[i]
i += 1
return L
For this to work the object to be flattened needs to be both mutable and
list like. At the moment I can't think of any reason I would want to
flatten anything that was not list like.
To make it a bit more flexible it could be changed just a bit.
def flatten(L):
""" Flatten a list in place. """
objtype = type(L)
i = 0
while i < len(L):
while type(L[i]) is objtype:
L[i:i+1] = L[i]
i += 1
return L
Generally, I don't think you would want to flatten dissimilar objects.
Cheers,
Ron
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4