On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:23:29 +0100, D'Arcy J.M. Cain <da...@druid.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:07:18 +1000
Xavier Ho <cont...@xavierho.com> wrote:
> print (sorted (l, reverse=True)[:k])
You don't really need to reverse sort there:
True but...
>>> numbers = [1, 4, 5, 3, 7, 8]
>>> sorted(numbers)[3:]
[5, 7, 8]
Now try returning the top two or four numbers.
sorted(numbers)[-2:]
[7, 8]
sorted(numbers)[-4:]
[4, 5, 7, 8]
or in general
sorted(numbers)[-k:]
That said, reverse sorting is probably clearer, and might be marginally
faster, though frankly I can't be bothered to check that.
--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste Herder to the Masses
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
