mk wrote: > I have stumbled upon this seemingly trivial problem: the answer is not > there in http://www.python.org/doc/faq/programming/, and googling does > not return many references really (at least for me). > > I have come up with this: > > def qips_identical(q, oldq):
> qips = map(operator.itemgetter(1), q) > oldqips = map(operator.itemgetter(1), oldq) I don't think the above is a relevant part of the problem. > if len(qips) != len(oldqips): > return False > dif = set(qips) ^ set(oldqips) > if len(dif): > return False > return True > > There's a number of complications here, depending on definition of > 'lists with identical values', like whether the same value can be > repeated different number of times in two lists, or whether the order of > values matters. > > In above example I assumed that the same values have to be repeated the > same numbers of times in both lists and that order doesn't matter so > long as the values are the same. No you haven't. [1, 1, 0] and [1, 0, 0] are considered equal by your algorithm. > I was wondering if there's a better / shorter / faster way to do this -- > not necessarily in the same variant, e.g. variant where order of two > lists matters would be interesting as well. sorted(left_list) == sorted(right_list) should be good enough in most cases where you do care for repetitions but not order. Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
