我有一个Python脚本,它把一个整数列表作为输入,我需要一次处理四个整数。不幸的是,我无法控制输入,否则我将它作为一个四元素元组列表传入。目前,我以这种方式迭代它:

for i in range(0, len(ints), 4):
    # dummy op for example code
    foo += ints[i] * ints[i + 1] + ints[i + 2] * ints[i + 3]

不过,它看起来很像“C-think”,这让我怀疑有一种更python的方式来处理这种情况。该列表在迭代后被丢弃,因此不需要保留。也许这样会更好?

while ints:
    foo += ints[0] * ints[1] + ints[2] * ints[3]
    ints[0:4] = []

不过,感觉还是不太对。: - /

相关问题:在Python中如何将列表分割成大小均匀的块?


当前回答

如果你不介意使用外部包,你可以使用iteration_utilities。Grouper from iteration_utilities它支持所有可迭代对象(不仅仅是序列):

from iteration_utilities import grouper
seq = list(range(20))
for group in grouper(seq, 4):
    print(group)

打印:

(0, 1, 2, 3)
(4, 5, 6, 7)
(8, 9, 10, 11)
(12, 13, 14, 15)
(16, 17, 18, 19)

如果长度不是组大小的倍数,它还支持填充(不完整的最后一组)或截断(丢弃不完整的最后一组)最后一个:

from iteration_utilities import grouper
seq = list(range(17))
for group in grouper(seq, 4):
    print(group)
# (0, 1, 2, 3)
# (4, 5, 6, 7)
# (8, 9, 10, 11)
# (12, 13, 14, 15)
# (16,)

for group in grouper(seq, 4, fillvalue=None):
    print(group)
# (0, 1, 2, 3)
# (4, 5, 6, 7)
# (8, 9, 10, 11)
# (12, 13, 14, 15)
# (16, None, None, None)

for group in grouper(seq, 4, truncate=True):
    print(group)
# (0, 1, 2, 3)
# (4, 5, 6, 7)
# (8, 9, 10, 11)
# (12, 13, 14, 15)

基准

我还决定比较上面提到的几种方法的运行时间。这是一个对数-对数图,根据不同大小的列表将“10”个元素分组。对于定性结果:较低意味着更快:

至少在这个基准测试中iteration_utilities。石斑鱼表现最好。接着是Craz。

基准是用simple_benchmark1创建的。运行这个基准测试的代码是:

import iteration_utilities
import itertools
from itertools import zip_longest

def consume_all(it):
    return iteration_utilities.consume(it, None)

import simple_benchmark
b = simple_benchmark.BenchmarkBuilder()

@b.add_function()
def grouper(l, n):
    return consume_all(iteration_utilities.grouper(l, n))

def Craz_inner(iterable, n, fillvalue=None):
    args = [iter(iterable)] * n
    return zip_longest(*args, fillvalue=fillvalue)

@b.add_function()
def Craz(iterable, n, fillvalue=None):
    return consume_all(Craz_inner(iterable, n, fillvalue))

def nosklo_inner(seq, size):
    return (seq[pos:pos + size] for pos in range(0, len(seq), size))

@b.add_function()
def nosklo(seq, size):
    return consume_all(nosklo_inner(seq, size))

def SLott_inner(ints, chunk_size):
    for i in range(0, len(ints), chunk_size):
        yield ints[i:i+chunk_size]

@b.add_function()
def SLott(ints, chunk_size):
    return consume_all(SLott_inner(ints, chunk_size))

def MarkusJarderot1_inner(iterable,size):
    it = iter(iterable)
    chunk = tuple(itertools.islice(it,size))
    while chunk:
        yield chunk
        chunk = tuple(itertools.islice(it,size))

@b.add_function()
def MarkusJarderot1(iterable,size):
    return consume_all(MarkusJarderot1_inner(iterable,size))

def MarkusJarderot2_inner(iterable,size,filler=None):
    it = itertools.chain(iterable,itertools.repeat(filler,size-1))
    chunk = tuple(itertools.islice(it,size))
    while len(chunk) == size:
        yield chunk
        chunk = tuple(itertools.islice(it,size))

@b.add_function()
def MarkusJarderot2(iterable,size):
    return consume_all(MarkusJarderot2_inner(iterable,size))

@b.add_arguments()
def argument_provider():
    for exp in range(2, 20):
        size = 2**exp
        yield size, simple_benchmark.MultiArgument([[0] * size, 10])

r = b.run()

1免责声明:我是iteration_utilities和simple_benchmark库的作者。

其他回答

这个问题的理想解决方案是使用迭代器(而不仅仅是序列)。它还应该是快速的。

这是itertools文档提供的解决方案:

def grouper(n, iterable, fillvalue=None):
    #"grouper(3, 'ABCDEFG', 'x') --> ABC DEF Gxx"
    args = [iter(iterable)] * n
    return itertools.izip_longest(fillvalue=fillvalue, *args)

在我的mac book air上使用ipython的%timeit,我每次循环得到47.5 us。

然而,这真的不适合我,因为结果被填充为偶数大小的组。没有填充的解决方案稍微复杂一些。最天真的解决方案可能是:

def grouper(size, iterable):
    i = iter(iterable)
    while True:
        out = []
        try:
            for _ in range(size):
                out.append(i.next())
        except StopIteration:
            yield out
            break
        
        yield out

简单,但相当慢:每循环693个

我能想到的最好的解决方案是使用islice进行内循环:

def grouper(size, iterable):
    it = iter(iterable)
    while True:
        group = tuple(itertools.islice(it, None, size))
        if not group:
            break
        yield group

对于同样的数据集,我每循环得到305 us。

由于无法更快地得到一个纯粹的解决方案,我提供了以下解决方案,但有一个重要的警告:如果您的输入数据中有filldata的实例,则可能会得到错误的答案。

def grouper(n, iterable, fillvalue=None):
    #"grouper(3, 'ABCDEFG', 'x') --> ABC DEF Gxx"
    args = [iter(iterable)] * n
    # itertools.zip_longest on Python 3
    for x in itertools.izip_longest(*args, fillvalue=fillvalue):
        if x[-1] is fillvalue:
            yield tuple(v for v in x if v is not fillvalue)
        else:
            yield x

我真的不喜欢这个答案,但它明显更快。每回路124 us

类似于其他提案,但不完全相同,我喜欢这样做,因为它简单易读:

it = iter([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9])
for chunk in zip(it, it, it, it):
    print chunk

>>> (1, 2, 3, 4)
>>> (5, 6, 7, 8)

这样你就不会得到最后一部分。如果你想获取(9,None, None, None)作为最后一个块,只需使用itertools中的izip_longest。

一行程序,特别的解决方案,以4 -大小的块迭代列表x

for a, b, c, d in zip(x[0::4], x[1::4], x[2::4], x[3::4]):
    ... do something with a, b, c and d ...
def group_by(iterable, size):
    """Group an iterable into lists that don't exceed the size given.

    >>> group_by([1,2,3,4,5], 2)
    [[1, 2], [3, 4], [5]]

    """
    sublist = []

    for index, item in enumerate(iterable):
        if index > 0 and index % size == 0:
            yield sublist
            sublist = []

        sublist.append(item)

    if sublist:
        yield sublist

还有另一个答案,它的优点是:

1)容易理解 2)适用于任何可迭代对象,而不仅仅是序列(上面的一些答案会阻塞文件句柄) 3)不立即将数据块加载到内存 4)不会在内存中生成对同一迭代器的块长的引用列表 5)在列表的末尾没有填充填充值

话虽如此,我还没有计算它的时间,所以它可能比一些更聪明的方法慢,而且考虑到用例,一些优势可能是无关紧要的。

def chunkiter(iterable, size):
  def inneriter(first, iterator, size):
    yield first
    for _ in xrange(size - 1): 
      yield iterator.next()
  it = iter(iterable)
  while True:
    yield inneriter(it.next(), it, size)

In [2]: i = chunkiter('abcdefgh', 3)
In [3]: for ii in i:                                                
          for c in ii:
            print c,
          print ''
        ...:     
        a b c 
        d e f 
        g h 

Update: A couple of drawbacks due to the fact the inner and outer loops are pulling values from the same iterator: 1) continue doesn't work as expected in the outer loop - it just continues on to the next item rather than skipping a chunk. However, this doesn't seem like a problem as there's nothing to test in the outer loop. 2) break doesn't work as expected in the inner loop - control will wind up in the inner loop again with the next item in the iterator. To skip whole chunks, either wrap the inner iterator (ii above) in a tuple, e.g. for c in tuple(ii), or set a flag and exhaust the iterator.