Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #197539

Re: not understanding the result of functools.reduce

Show key headers only | View raw

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:

> Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu> wrote or quoted:
>>## The question is how to write such an operator.  I wrote this one:
>>def op(x, b):
>>  return isinstance(x, int) or b
>
>   The main snag with your op function and how you're using
>   reduce is the switch-up in the argument order that "reduce"
>   expects versus how you set up op.
>
>   "functools.reduce" calls the reducer function "op" with two
>   arguments: the accumulated value so far first, then the
>   next element from the iterable.
>
>   You wrote "op" as "op(x, b)", where you treat "x" like an element
>   and "b" like a boolean accumulator, but actually "reduce" hands
>   the accumulator first, then the element.
>
>   So when "reduce" runs, the first argument "x" is actually the boolean
>   accumulator, and the second "b" is the next element.

You're a master.  That happens to be the one thing I didn't check!  I
couldn't think of it, even though I'm well aware that not every binary
operator is commutative.  Such is life!  Thanks so much!

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

not understanding the result of functools.reduce Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu> - 2025-08-22 11:46 -0300
  Re: not understanding the result of functools.reduce ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2025-08-22 15:30 +0000
    Re: not understanding the result of functools.reduce Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu> - 2025-08-22 12:45 -0300

csiph-web