Sorry, doesn't the following make a copy?
>>>> from collections import defaultdict as dd
>>>> x = dd(int)
>>>> x[1] = 'a'
>>>> x
> defaultdict(<type 'int'>, {1: 'a'})
>>>> dict(x)
> {1: 'a'}
>
>
I was hoping not to do that -- e.g., actually reuse the same
underlying data. Maybe dict(x), where x is a defaultdict is smart? I
agree that a defaultdict is safe to pass to most routines, but I guess
I could imagine that a try/except block is used in a bit of code where
on the key exception (when the value is absent) populates the value
with a random number. In that application, a defaultdict would have
no random values.
Besides a slightly different favor, does the following have
applications not covered by defaultdict?
m.setdefault('key', []).append(1)
I think I am unclear on the difference between that and:
m['key'] = m.get('key',[]).append(1)
Except that the latter works for immutable values as well as containers.
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:59:52 -0400, wheres pythonmonks wrote:
>
>> Instead of defaultdict for hash of lists, I have seen something like:
>>
>>
>> m={}; m.setdefault('key', []).append(1)
>>
>> Would this be preferred in some circumstances?
>
> Sure, why not? Whichever you prefer.
>
> setdefault() is a venerable old technique, dating back to Python 2.0, and
> not a newcomer like defaultdict.
>
>
>> Also, is there a way to upcast a defaultdict into a dict?
>
> "Upcast"? Surely it is downcasting. Or side-casting. Or type-casting.
> Whatever. *wink*
>
> Whatever it is, the answer is Yes:
>
>>>> from collections import defaultdict as dd
>>>> x = dd(int)
>>>> x[1] = 'a'
>>>> x
> defaultdict(<type 'int'>, {1: 'a'})
>>>> dict(x)
> {1: 'a'}
>
>
>
>> I have also heard some people use
>> exceptions on dictionaries to catch key existence, so passing in a
>> defaultdict (I guess) could be hazardous to health. Is this true?
>
> Yes, it is true that some people use exceptions on dicts to catch key
> existence. The most common reason to do so is to catch the non-existence
> of a key so you can add it:
>
> try:
> mydict[x] = mydict[x] + 1
> except KeyError:
> mydict[x] = 1
>
>
> If mydict is a defaultdict with the appropriate factory, then the change
> is perfectly safe because mydict[x] will not raise an exception when x is
> missing, but merely return 0, so it will continue to work as expected and
> all is good.
>
> Of course, if you pass it an defaultdict with an *inappropriate* factory,
> you'll get an error. So don't do that :) Seriously, you can't expect to
> just randomly replace a variable with some arbitrarily different variable
> and expect it to work. You need to know what the code is expecting, and
> not break those expectations too badly.
>
> And now you have at least three ways of setting missing values in a dict.
> And those wacky Perl people say that Python's motto is "only one way to
> do it" :)
>
>
>
> --
> Steven
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
