Python Function with list as argument OR multiple values as argument
I want to write a python function my_sum that extends python's built-in sum in the following way:
- If a sequence is passed to
my_sumit behaves like the built-insum. - If multiple values are passed to
my_sum, it returns the sum of the values.
Desired output:
my_sum([1, 2, 3]) # shall return 6 (similiar to built-in sum)
my_sum(1, 2, 3) # shall return 6 as well, (sum throws TypeError)
What worked was the following.
def my_sum(*x):
try:
return sum(x) # sums multiple values
except TypeError:
return sum(*x) # sums sequence of values
Is that the pythonic way to accomplish the desired behavior? For me the code looks odd.
python function
asked Nov 21 '18 at 16:27
Alex G
1476
add a comment |
I want to write a python function my_sum that extends python's built-in sum in the following way:
- If a sequence is passed to
my_sumit behaves like the built-insum. - If multiple values are passed to
my_sum, it returns the sum of the values.
Desired output:
my_sum([1, 2, 3]) # shall return 6 (similiar to built-in sum)
my_sum(1, 2, 3) # shall return 6 as well, (sum throws TypeError)
What worked was the following.
def my_sum(*x):
try:
return sum(x) # sums multiple values
except TypeError:
return sum(*x) # sums sequence of values
Is that the pythonic way to accomplish the desired behavior? For me the code looks odd.
python function
asked Nov 21 '18 at 16:27
Alex G
1476
this doesn't belong here but in Code Review, I am voting to close this
– aws_apprentice
Nov 21 '18 at 16:28
What is odd about it? try:..except is fine.
– juanpa.arrivillaga
Nov 21 '18 at 17:19
add a comment |
I want to write a python function my_sum that extends python's built-in sum in the following way:
- If a sequence is passed to
my_sumit behaves like the built-insum. - If multiple values are passed to
my_sum, it returns the sum of the values.
Desired output:
my_sum([1, 2, 3]) # shall return 6 (similiar to built-in sum)
my_sum(1, 2, 3) # shall return 6 as well, (sum throws TypeError)
What worked was the following.
def my_sum(*x):
try:
return sum(x) # sums multiple values
except TypeError:
return sum(*x) # sums sequence of values
Is that the pythonic way to accomplish the desired behavior? For me the code looks odd.
python function
asked Nov 21 '18 at 16:27
Alex G
1476
I want to write a python function my_sum that extends python's built-in sum in the following way:
- If a sequence is passed to
my_sumit behaves like the built-insum. - If multiple values are passed to
my_sum, it returns the sum of the values.
Desired output:
my_sum([1, 2, 3]) # shall return 6 (similiar to built-in sum)
my_sum(1, 2, 3) # shall return 6 as well, (sum throws TypeError)
What worked was the following.
def my_sum(*x):
try:
return sum(x) # sums multiple values
except TypeError:
return sum(*x) # sums sequence of values
Is that the pythonic way to accomplish the desired behavior? For me the code looks odd.
python function
python function
asked Nov 21 '18 at 16:27
Alex G
1476
asked Nov 21 '18 at 16:27
Alex G
1476
asked Nov 21 '18 at 16:27
Alex G
1476
asked Nov 21 '18 at 16:27
Alex G
1476
asked Nov 21 '18 at 16:27
Alex G
1476
1476
this doesn't belong here but in Code Review, I am voting to close this
– aws_apprentice
Nov 21 '18 at 16:28
What is odd about it? try:..except is fine.
– juanpa.arrivillaga
Nov 21 '18 at 17:19
add a comment |
this doesn't belong here but in Code Review, I am voting to close this
– aws_apprentice
Nov 21 '18 at 16:28
What is odd about it? try:..except is fine.
– juanpa.arrivillaga
Nov 21 '18 at 17:19
this doesn't belong here but in Code Review, I am voting to close this
– aws_apprentice
Nov 21 '18 at 16:28
this doesn't belong here but in Code Review, I am voting to close this
– aws_apprentice
Nov 21 '18 at 16:28
What is odd about it? try:..except is fine.
– juanpa.arrivillaga
Nov 21 '18 at 17:19
What is odd about it? try:..except is fine.
– juanpa.arrivillaga
Nov 21 '18 at 17:19
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
It is pythonic. I think at least one check is required and python has the philosophy "Ask for forgiveness not permission" (explained here) which basically means that using try-except blocks is OK for standard control flows.
If importing an established library is pythonic and something you are allowed and willing to do, you can use numpy.sum too, as follows:
import numpy as np
def my_sum(*x):
return np.sum(x)
With this definition, both
my_sum([1, 2, 3])
my_sum(1, 2, 3)
return 6.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:16
Julian Peller
864511
add a comment |
I think it is not an use case for exceptions, exceptions are for exceptional cases. Use another function if you convert arguments to a list and pass to the adder function.
In addition, the validation and formatting of the input should be in the outer part of the code, not in the final function. In the best case the data should be validated before coming to this function, and you should only have the sum function to deal with the cooked data.
It's a way to:
- Keep things simple
- Avoid adding conditional paths
- Avoid defensive programming in inner code
- And thus avoid future problems.
I would have the following code.
def argsToList(*x):
return list(x)
print sum([1,2,3,4])
print sum(argsToList(1,2,3,4))
# both output 10
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:56
David Lemon
959617
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53416484%2fpython-function-with-list-as-argument-or-multiple-values-as-argument%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It is pythonic. I think at least one check is required and python has the philosophy "Ask for forgiveness not permission" (explained here) which basically means that using try-except blocks is OK for standard control flows.
If importing an established library is pythonic and something you are allowed and willing to do, you can use numpy.sum too, as follows:
import numpy as np
def my_sum(*x):
return np.sum(x)
With this definition, both
my_sum([1, 2, 3])
my_sum(1, 2, 3)
return 6.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:16
Julian Peller
864511
add a comment |
It is pythonic. I think at least one check is required and python has the philosophy "Ask for forgiveness not permission" (explained here) which basically means that using try-except blocks is OK for standard control flows.
If importing an established library is pythonic and something you are allowed and willing to do, you can use numpy.sum too, as follows:
import numpy as np
def my_sum(*x):
return np.sum(x)
With this definition, both
my_sum([1, 2, 3])
my_sum(1, 2, 3)
return 6.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:16
Julian Peller
864511
add a comment |
It is pythonic. I think at least one check is required and python has the philosophy "Ask for forgiveness not permission" (explained here) which basically means that using try-except blocks is OK for standard control flows.
If importing an established library is pythonic and something you are allowed and willing to do, you can use numpy.sum too, as follows:
import numpy as np
def my_sum(*x):
return np.sum(x)
With this definition, both
my_sum([1, 2, 3])
my_sum(1, 2, 3)
return 6.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:16
Julian Peller
864511
It is pythonic. I think at least one check is required and python has the philosophy "Ask for forgiveness not permission" (explained here) which basically means that using try-except blocks is OK for standard control flows.
If importing an established library is pythonic and something you are allowed and willing to do, you can use numpy.sum too, as follows:
import numpy as np
def my_sum(*x):
return np.sum(x)
With this definition, both
my_sum([1, 2, 3])
my_sum(1, 2, 3)
return 6.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:16
Julian Peller
864511
edited Nov 21 '18 at 17:26
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:16
Julian Peller
864511
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:16
Julian Peller
864511
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:16
Julian Peller
864511
864511
add a comment |
add a comment |
I think it is not an use case for exceptions, exceptions are for exceptional cases. Use another function if you convert arguments to a list and pass to the adder function.
In addition, the validation and formatting of the input should be in the outer part of the code, not in the final function. In the best case the data should be validated before coming to this function, and you should only have the sum function to deal with the cooked data.
It's a way to:
- Keep things simple
- Avoid adding conditional paths
- Avoid defensive programming in inner code
- And thus avoid future problems.
I would have the following code.
def argsToList(*x):
return list(x)
print sum([1,2,3,4])
print sum(argsToList(1,2,3,4))
# both output 10
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:56
David Lemon
959617
add a comment |
I think it is not an use case for exceptions, exceptions are for exceptional cases. Use another function if you convert arguments to a list and pass to the adder function.
In addition, the validation and formatting of the input should be in the outer part of the code, not in the final function. In the best case the data should be validated before coming to this function, and you should only have the sum function to deal with the cooked data.
It's a way to:
- Keep things simple
- Avoid adding conditional paths
- Avoid defensive programming in inner code
- And thus avoid future problems.
I would have the following code.
def argsToList(*x):
return list(x)
print sum([1,2,3,4])
print sum(argsToList(1,2,3,4))
# both output 10
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:56
David Lemon
959617
add a comment |
I think it is not an use case for exceptions, exceptions are for exceptional cases. Use another function if you convert arguments to a list and pass to the adder function.
In addition, the validation and formatting of the input should be in the outer part of the code, not in the final function. In the best case the data should be validated before coming to this function, and you should only have the sum function to deal with the cooked data.
It's a way to:
- Keep things simple
- Avoid adding conditional paths
- Avoid defensive programming in inner code
- And thus avoid future problems.
I would have the following code.
def argsToList(*x):
return list(x)
print sum([1,2,3,4])
print sum(argsToList(1,2,3,4))
# both output 10
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:56
David Lemon
959617
I think it is not an use case for exceptions, exceptions are for exceptional cases. Use another function if you convert arguments to a list and pass to the adder function.
In addition, the validation and formatting of the input should be in the outer part of the code, not in the final function. In the best case the data should be validated before coming to this function, and you should only have the sum function to deal with the cooked data.
It's a way to:
- Keep things simple
- Avoid adding conditional paths
- Avoid defensive programming in inner code
- And thus avoid future problems.
I would have the following code.
def argsToList(*x):
return list(x)
print sum([1,2,3,4])
print sum(argsToList(1,2,3,4))
# both output 10
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:56
David Lemon
959617
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:56
David Lemon
959617
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:56
David Lemon
959617
answered Nov 21 '18 at 17:56
David Lemon
959617
959617
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53416484%2fpython-function-with-list-as-argument-or-multiple-values-as-argument%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
this doesn't belong here but in Code Review, I am voting to close this
– aws_apprentice
Nov 21 '18 at 16:28
What is odd about it? try:..except is fine.
– juanpa.arrivillaga
Nov 21 '18 at 17:19