Re: best cumulative sum
- From: "David Isaac" <aisaac0@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:38:24 GMT
"Michael Spencer" <mahs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mailman.1054.1132707811.18701.python-> This can be written more
concisely as a generator:
>
> >>> import operator
> >>> def ireduce(func, iterable, init):
> ... for i in iterable:
> ... init = func(init, i)
> ... yield init
OK, this might do it. But is a generator "better"?
(I assume accuracy is the same, so what about speed?)
def ireduce(func, iterable, init=None):
if not init:
iterable = iter(iterable)
init = iterable.next()
yield init
elif not iterable:
yield init
for item in iterable:
init = func(init, item)
yield init
Alan Isaac
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: best cumulative sum
- From: bonono@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: best cumulative sum
- References:
- best cumulative sum
- From: David Isaac
- Re: best cumulative sum
- From: Micah Elliott
- Re: best cumulative sum
- From: Erik Max Francis
- Re: best cumulative sum
- From: bonono@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: best cumulative sum
- From: David Isaac
- Re: best cumulative sum
- From: Colin J. Williams
- Re: best cumulative sum
- From: David Isaac
- Re: best cumulative sum
- From: Michael Spencer
- best cumulative sum
- Prev by Date: Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL
- Next by Date: Re: best cumulative sum
- Previous by thread: Re: best cumulative sum
- Next by thread: Re: best cumulative sum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|