If bool(B_i)==True for 1<=i<=n and j is the smallest i with bool(A_j)==True,
then the evaluation of (A_1 and B_1) or ... or (A_n and B_n) returns B_j without
evaluating any other B_i. This is such a useful mode of expression that I would
like to be able to use something similar even when there is an i with
bool(B_i)==False. The only thing I can think of by myself is ( (A_1 and [B_1])
or ... or (A_n and [B_n]) )[0], and I can't be satisfied with that for obvious
reasons. Does anybody know a good way to express this? Any help will be mucho
appreciado.
Peace
[Python] conditional expression sought
Tweet 

Search Discussions

Sidharth Kuruvila at Jan 29, 2004 at 6:18 pm ⇧ since True and False
can also evaluate as 1 and 0
you can use the binary operatorsand &for or and and respectively... a = 5class F:
... def b(self):
... self.a = 4
... return True
... def a(self):
... self.a = 1
... return False
...Falseg = F()
g.a() & g.b()4g.a
"Elaine Jackson" <elainejackson7355 at home.com> wrote in message
news:pRbSb.330334$ts4.37644 at pd7tw3no...If bool(B_i)==True for 1<=i<=n and j is the smallest i with
bool(A_j)==True,
then the evaluation of (A_1 and B_1) or ... or (A_n and B_n) returns B_j without
evaluating any other B_i. This is such a useful mode of expression that I would
like to be able to use something similar even when there is an i with
bool(B_i)==False. The only thing I can think of by myself is ( (A_1 and [B_1])
or ... or (A_n and [B_n]) )[0], and I can't be satisfied with that for obvious
reasons. Does anybody know a good way to express this? Any help will be mucho
appreciado.
Peace 
Mark McEahern at Jan 29, 2004 at 6:51 pm ⇧ Why not write a unit test that demonstrates the behavior you want?Elaine Jackson wrote:
If bool(B_i)==True for 1<=i<=n and j is the smallest i with bool(A_j)==True,
then the evaluation of (A_1 and B_1) or ... or (A_n and B_n) returns B_j without
evaluating any other B_i. This is such a useful mode of expression that I would
like to be able to use something similar even when there is an i with
bool(B_i)==False. The only thing I can think of by myself is ( (A_1 and [B_1])
or ... or (A_n and [B_n]) )[0], and I can't be satisfied with that for obvious
reasons. Does anybody know a good way to express this? Any help will be mucho
appreciado.
It'll then likely be obvious to someone both what your problem is and
what a likely solution is.
Cheers,
// m

Wes weston at Jan 29, 2004 at 9:11 pm ⇧ Preferably, a program that runs or a screen dump.
Mark McEahern wrote:Elaine Jackson wrote:If bool(B_i)==True for 1<=i<=n and j is the smallest i withWhy not write a unit test that demonstrates the behavior you want?
bool(A_j)==True,
then the evaluation of (A_1 and B_1) or ... or (A_n and B_n) returns
B_j without
evaluating any other B_i. This is such a useful mode of expression
that I would
like to be able to use something similar even when there is an i with
bool(B_i)==False. The only thing I can think of by myself is ( (A_1
and [B_1])
or ... or (A_n and [B_n]) )[0], and I can't be satisfied with that for
obvious
reasons. Does anybody know a good way to express this? Any help will
be mucho
appreciado.
It'll then likely be obvious to someone both what your problem is and
what a likely solution is.
Cheers,
// m 
Corey Coughlin at Jan 30, 2004 at 12:25 am ⇧ "Elaine Jackson" <elainejackson7355 at home.com> wrote in message news:<pRbSb.330334$ts4.37644 at pd7tw3no>...If bool(B_i)==True for 1<=i<=n and j is the smallest i with bool(A_j)==True,Oh, this must be part of your truth table script. Interesting,
then the evaluation of (A_1 and B_1) or ... or (A_n and B_n) returns B_j without
evaluating any other B_i. This is such a useful mode of expression that I would
like to be able to use something similar even when there is an i with
bool(B_i)==False. The only thing I can think of by myself is ( (A_1 and [B_1])
or ... or (A_n and [B_n]) )[0], and I can't be satisfied with that for obvious
reasons. Does anybody know a good way to express this? Any help will be mucho
appreciado.
Peace
looking for something like a fast SOP evaluator, or more like a
function evaluation mechanism? It would probably be most useful to
share your containers for A and B. Are you really going to have
variables named A_1 to A_n, or will you just have a vector A[0:n]?
The vector would probably be easier to deal with. Using integer
representations for your boolean vectors is a good idea, and will
probably buy you enough speed that you won't need a more serious form
of short circuit evaluation, I imagine. Unless your vectors are very
large indeed. Hmm...

Elaine Jackson at Jan 30, 2004 at 5:49 am ⇧ This is just for theoretical interest. The A_i's and B_i's were meant as
metavariables.
"Corey Coughlin" <corey.coughlin at attbi.com> wrote in message
news:a8623416.0401291625.594a9768 at posting.google.com..."Elaine Jackson" <elainejackson7355 at home.com> wrote in messagenews:<pRbSb.330334$ts4.37644 at pd7tw3no>...withoutIf bool(B_i)==True for 1<=i<=n and j is the smallest i with bool(A_j)==True,
then the evaluation of (A_1 and B_1) or ... or (A_n and B_n) returns B_jwouldevaluating any other B_i. This is such a useful mode of expression that I[B_1])like to be able to use something similar even when there is an i with
bool(B_i)==False. The only thing I can think of by myself is ( (A_1 andobviousor ... or (A_n and [B_n]) )[0], and I can't be satisfied with that formuchoreasons. Does anybody know a good way to express this? Any help will beappreciado.Oh, this must be part of your truth table script. Interesting,
Peace
looking for something like a fast SOP evaluator, or more like a
function evaluation mechanism? It would probably be most useful to
share your containers for A and B. Are you really going to have
variables named A_1 to A_n, or will you just have a vector A[0:n]?
The vector would probably be easier to deal with. Using integer
representations for your boolean vectors is a good idea, and will
probably buy you enough speed that you won't need a more serious form
of short circuit evaluation, I imagine. Unless your vectors are very
large indeed. Hmm... 
Dave K at Jan 30, 2004 at 12:47 am ⇧ I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but for i > a veryOn Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:58:45 GMT in comp.lang.python, "Elaine Jackson" wrote:
If bool(B_i)==True for 1<=i<=n and j is the smallest i with bool(A_j)==True,
then the evaluation of (A_1 and B_1) or ... or (A_n and B_n) returns B_j without
evaluating any other B_i. This is such a useful mode of expression that I would
like to be able to use something similar even when there is an i with
bool(B_i)==False. The only thing I can think of by myself is ( (A_1 and [B_1])
or ... or (A_n and [B_n]) )[0], and I can't be satisfied with that for obvious
reasons. Does anybody know a good way to express this? Any help will be mucho
appreciado.
Peace
small number, the zip function seems more appropriate:for a, b in zip(A, B):def get_B_i(A, B):
if a: return b
return A[1]2print get_B_i([False, False, True, False], [0, 1, 2, 3])Falseprint get_B_i([False, False, False, False], [0, 1, 2, 3])
This has exactly the same effect provided that A and B are the same
length, otherwise the return value by failure should be adjusted to
whatever suits your purpose.
If you really want to write a conditional expression out in full, I
can't think of anything nonclumsy that would work for all possible
values of B_i, so unfortunately can't help you there.
Dave

Elaine Jackson at Jan 30, 2004 at 5:48 am ⇧ This is a good idea. Thanks for pointing it out.
"Dave K" <dk123456789 at REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:866j101bbuuhtpan29eop9o4mk1mt7nckn at 4ax.com...On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:58:45 GMT in comp.lang.python, "Elaine Jackson"without
wrote:If bool(B_i)==True for 1<=i<=n and j is the smallest i with bool(A_j)==True,
then the evaluation of (A_1 and B_1) or ... or (A_n and B_n) returns B_jwouldevaluating any other B_i. This is such a useful mode of expression that I[B_1])like to be able to use something similar even when there is an i with
bool(B_i)==False. The only thing I can think of by myself is ( (A_1 andobviousor ... or (A_n and [B_n]) )[0], and I can't be satisfied with that forreasons. Does anybody know a good way to express this? Any help will be muchoI'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but for i > a very
appreciado.
Peace
small number, the zip function seems more appropriate:for a, b in zip(A, B):def get_B_i(A, B):
if a: return b
return A[1]2print get_B_i([False, False, True, False], [0, 1, 2, 3])Falseprint get_B_i([False, False, False, False], [0, 1, 2, 3])
This has exactly the same effect provided that A and B are the same
length, otherwise the return value by failure should be adjusted to
whatever suits your purpose.
If you really want to write a conditional expression out in full, I
can't think of anything nonclumsy that would work for all possible
values of B_i, so unfortunately can't help you there.
Dave 
Elaine Jackson at Jan 30, 2004 at 1:06 am ⇧ Sorry to take so long but I wasn't sure what a "unit test" was (the other guy's
post clarified it). Tell me if this isn't what you're looking for:
falsies=[0,0.0,[],(),{},'',None]
truies=[49,3.14,[1,2,3],(4,5,6),{7:8,9:10},'nonempty']
def demo(A,B):
print "If A is ",A
print "and B is ",B
print "then (A[0] and B[0]) or (A[1] and B[1]) or (A[2] and B[2]) = ",
print (A[0] and B[0]) or (A[1] and B[1]) or (A[2] and B[2])
A=[]
from random import randint
for i in range(3):
A.append(bool(randint(0,1)))
B=truies[0:3]
demo(A,B)
A=[False,False,False]
B=falsies[0:3]
demo(A,B)
print "I would have liked this to be B[2] = ",B[2]
"Mark McEahern" <mark at mceahern.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1000.1075402284.12720.pythonlist at python.org...Elaine Jackson wrote:withoutIf bool(B_i)==True for 1<=i<=n and j is the smallest i with bool(A_j)==True,
then the evaluation of (A_1 and B_1) or ... or (A_n and B_n) returns B_jwouldevaluating any other B_i. This is such a useful mode of expression that I[B_1])like to be able to use something similar even when there is an i with
bool(B_i)==False. The only thing I can think of by myself is ( (A_1 andobviousor ... or (A_n and [B_n]) )[0], and I can't be satisfied with that forreasons. Does anybody know a good way to express this? Any help will be muchoWhy not write a unit test that demonstrates the behavior you want?
appreciado.
It'll then likely be obvious to someone both what your problem is and
what a likely solution is.
Cheers,
// m 
Wes weston at Jan 30, 2004 at 3:02 am ⇧ Elaine,
The last code line:
print "I would have liked this to be B[2] = ",B[2]
prints the value of B[2]; the value you don't want.
I think what you meant was that you want B[2] to be
0.0 not false. bool(0.0) does equal false.

The code:
A.append(bool(randint(0,1)))
will always yield an A of [true,true,true]

I didn't know this about python, and I'm not sure I
like it:
wes at linux:~/amy> python2.2print 1.1 and 2.21.1print 2.2 and 1.12.2print (1.1 and 2.2)
The order is important. To me, it should be printing true
and not either number or the last number.

Elaine Jackson at Jan 30, 2004 at 6:07 am ⇧ Thanks for your help. I just looked at some values of random.randint(0,1) in my
interpreter, and one of them was 0. Getting nonboolean values from conjunction
and disjunction allows conditional evaluation of expressions; for example:
reciprocal = lambda x: (x!=0 and 1.0/x) or (x==0 and "undefined").
"wes weston" <wweston at att.net> wrote in message
news:6PjSb.138487$6y6.2697536 at bgtnsc05news.ops.worldnet.att.net...Elaine,
The last code line:
print "I would have liked this to be B[2] = ",B[2]
prints the value of B[2]; the value you don't want.
I think what you meant was that you want B[2] to be
0.0 not false. bool(0.0) does equal false.

The code:
A.append(bool(randint(0,1)))
will always yield an A of [true,true,true]

I didn't know this about python, and I'm not sure I
like it:
wes at linux:~/amy> python2.2print 1.1 and 2.21.1print 2.2 and 1.12.2print (1.1 and 2.2)
The order is important. To me, it should be printing true
and not either number or the last number. 
Wes weston at Jan 30, 2004 at 2:28 pm ⇧ oops;
The code:
A.append(bool(randint(0,1)))
will always yield an A of [true,true,true]
WRONG; was thinking it was a rand float;.
Thanks for replying to all who tried to help.
wes
wes weston wrote:Elaine,
The last code line:
print "I would have liked this to be B[2] = ",B[2]
prints the value of B[2]; the value you don't want.
I think what you meant was that you want B[2] to be
0.0 not false. bool(0.0) does equal false.

The code:
A.append(bool(randint(0,1)))
will always yield an A of [true,true,true]

I didn't know this about python, and I'm not sure I
like it:
wes at linux:~/amy> python2.2print 1.1 and 2.21.1print 2.2 and 1.12.2print (1.1 and 2.2)
The order is important. To me, it should be printing true
and not either number or the last number. 
Mark McEahern at Jan 30, 2004 at 2:25 pm ⇧ Try this:Elaine Jackson wrote:
Sorry to take so long but I wasn't sure what a "unit test" was (the other guy's
post clarified it). Tell me if this isn't what you're looking for:
falsies=[0,0.0,[],(),{},'',None]
truies=[49,3.14,[1,2,3],(4,5,6),{7:8,9:10},'nonempty']
def demo(A,B):
print "If A is ",A
print "and B is ",B
print "then (A[0] and B[0]) or (A[1] and B[1]) or (A[2] and B[2]) = ",
print (A[0] and B[0]) or (A[1] and B[1]) or (A[2] and B[2])
A=[]
from random import randint
for i in range(3):
A.append(bool(randint(0,1)))
B=truies[0:3]
demo(A,B)
A=[False,False,False]
B=falsies[0:3]
demo(A,B)
print "I would have liked this to be B[2] = ",B[2]
def whatever(A, B):
"""I don't know what to call this function because it doesn't really
make sense to me, but, whatever..."""
c = zip(A, B)
last = len(c)  1
for i, item in enumerate(c):
a, b = item
# If both items are true, return b.
if a and b:
return b
# If we're at the last item, return b.
if i == last:
return b
print whatever(A, B)
import unittest
class test(unittest.TestCase):
def testAllFalse(self):
A = [False, False, False]
B = [0, 0.0, []]
expected = []
actual = whatever(A, B)
self.assertEquals(actual, expected)
def testSomeTrue(self):
A = [0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1]
B = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f']
expected = 'b'
actual = whatever(A, B)
self.assertEquals(actual, expected)
unittest.main()

Dave K at Jan 30, 2004 at 10:51 pm ⇧ (snip)On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:06:55 GMT in comp.lang.python, "Elaine Jackson" wrote:
Sorry to take so long but I wasn't sure what a "unit test" was (the other guy's
post clarified it). Tell me if this isn't what you're looking for:
falsies=[0,0.0,[],(),{},'',None]
truies=[49,3.14,[1,2,3],(4,5,6),{7:8,9:10},'nonempty']
def demo(A,B):
print "If A is ",A
print "and B is ",B
print "then (A[0] and B[0]) or (A[1] and B[1]) or (A[2] and B[2]) = ",
print (A[0] and B[0]) or (A[1] and B[1]) or (A[2] and B[2])
A=[]
from random import randint
for i in range(3):
A.append(bool(randint(0,1)))
B=truies[0:3]
demo(A,B)
A=[False,False,False]
B=falsies[0:3]
demo(A,B)
print "I would have liked this to be B[2] = ",B[2]
Do you mean that the expression should return the last element in B if
all elements in A are false? If all subexpressions before the last are
false, the whole conditional reduces to:
A[1] and B[1]
So simply force (a copy of) A[1] to always be true. Instead of
rewriting demo, I'll cheat by modifying the call:If A is [False, False, True]A=[False, False, False]
B=[0, 0.0, []]
demo(A[:1]+[True], B)
and B is [0, 0.0, []]
then (A[0] and B[0]) or (A[1] and B[1]) or (A[2] and B[2]) = [][False, False, False]print A
For complete generality, you should also consider the case where
len(A) != len(B). Truncate the longer list, or extend the shorter?
Does it matter which list is shorter? Or forget the whole mess and
raise an exception? There are lots of reasonable possibilities, but
they won't all lead to the same result for certain input values.
You're in charge of this project, you decide :)
Dave

Elaine Jackson at Jan 31, 2004 at 5:57 am ⇧ Thanks. I've got this straightened around in my head now. I just sortof
'panicked' when I saw a boolean literal where I didn't expect one to be (ie:
returned by the expression with the A's and B's when all the A's are False). I
realized later that that's what I should have expected, and that you could
always just add "...or undefined()" to such an expression, where
def undefined():
raise "undefined conditional expression"
This is all just part of my newbie efforts to assimilate the language. Anyway,
thanks again for your help.
Peace
"Dave K" <dk123456789 at REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ulnl10teov6ceq1q52laduq13d7u9edddd at 4ax.com...On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:06:55 GMT in comp.lang.python, "Elaine Jackson"guy's
wrote:Sorry to take so long but I wasn't sure what a "unit test" was (the otherpost clarified it). Tell me if this isn't what you're looking for:(snip)
falsies=[0,0.0,[],(),{},'',None]
truies=[49,3.14,[1,2,3],(4,5,6),{7:8,9:10},'nonempty']
def demo(A,B):
print "If A is ",A
print "and B is ",B
print "then (A[0] and B[0]) or (A[1] and B[1]) or (A[2] and B[2]) = ",
print (A[0] and B[0]) or (A[1] and B[1]) or (A[2] and B[2])
A=[]
from random import randint
for i in range(3):
A.append(bool(randint(0,1)))
B=truies[0:3]
demo(A,B)
A=[False,False,False]
B=falsies[0:3]
demo(A,B)
print "I would have liked this to be B[2] = ",B[2]
Do you mean that the expression should return the last element in B if
all elements in A are false? If all subexpressions before the last are
false, the whole conditional reduces to:
A[1] and B[1]
So simply force (a copy of) A[1] to always be true. Instead of
rewriting demo, I'll cheat by modifying the call:If A is [False, False, True]A=[False, False, False]
B=[0, 0.0, []]
demo(A[:1]+[True], B)
and B is [0, 0.0, []]
then (A[0] and B[0]) or (A[1] and B[1]) or (A[2] and B[2]) = [][False, False, False]print A
For complete generality, you should also consider the case where
len(A) != len(B). Truncate the longer list, or extend the shorter?
Does it matter which list is shorter? Or forget the whole mess and
raise an exception? There are lots of reasonable possibilities, but
they won't all lead to the same result for certain input values.
You're in charge of this project, you decide :)
Dave
Related Discussions
Discussion Navigation
view  thread  post 
Discussion Overview
group  pythonlist 
categories  python 
posted  Jan 29, '04 at 5:58p 
active  Jan 31, '04 at 5:57a 
posts  15 
users  6 
website  python.org 