On Apr 27, 11:43 am, jazbees <jazb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 12:11 pm, Duncan Booth <duncan.bo...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > jazbees <jazb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> hasvowels = lambda x:max([y in x for y in "aeiou"])
> > >>>> hasvowels("parsnips")
> > > True
> > >>>> hasvowels("sfwdkj")
> > > False
>
> > Do you object to using def to define functions?
>
> Not at all. Do you object to my use of lambdas? I'm not aware of
> anything that says it's bad form to define a function using a lambda
> when the only thing that a function does is immediately return some
> calculated value.
>
> > Anyway, it is probably clearer to use the builtin 'any' for code like this:
>
> > >>> def hasvowels(s):
>
> > ... return any(v in s for v in "aeiou")
>
> I wasn't aware of either "any" or "all". Thanks for the info!
> Unfortunately this recent project where I used "min" and "max" is
> running on a system using Python 2.4, so "any" and "all" are not
> available.
>
> > If you are doing a lot of this consider whether you might be better off
> > using sets:
>
> > >>> def found(x,y):
>
> > ... return bool(set(x).intersection(y))
>
> I haven't used sets very much, but I'll definitely keep this in mind.
Something else worth noting:
dos-prompt>\python24\python -mtimeit -s"hasvowels=lambda x:max([y in x
for y in 'aeiou'])" "hasvowels('parsnips')"
100000 loops, best of 3: 3.08 usec per loop
dos-prompt>\python24\python -mtimeit -s"hasvowels=lambda x:max([y in x
for y in 'aeiou'])" "hasvowels('qwrtypsdf')"
100000 loops, best of 3: 3.06 usec per loop
dos-prompt>\python24\python -mtimeit -s"import re; hasvowels=re.compile
('[aeiou]').search" "hasvowels('parsnips')"
1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.32 usec per loop
dos-prompt>\python24\python -mtimeit -s"import re; hasvowels=re.compile
('[aeiou]').search" "hasvowels('qwrtypsdf')"
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.934 usec per loop
HTH,
John
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
