这是另一个选项，对于长列表，比len(set(x))==1快(使用短路)

def constantList(x):
    return x and [x[0]]*len(x) == x

最佳答案

Twitter上有一个不错的帖子，介绍了实现all_equal()函数的各种方法。

给定一个列表输入，最好的提交是:

 t.count(t[0]) == len(t)  

其他方法

下面是线程的结果:

Have groupby() compare adjacent entries. This has an early-out for a mismatch, does not use extra memory, and it runs at C speed. g = itertools.groupby(s) next(g, True) and not next(g, False) Compare two slices offset from one another by one position. This uses extra memory but runs at C speed. s[1:] == s[:-1] Iterator version of slice comparison. It runs at C speed and does not use extra memory; however, the eq calls are expensive. all(map(operator.eq, s, itertools.islice(s, 1, None))) Compare the lowest and highest values. This runs at C speed, doesn't use extra memory, but does cost two inequality tests per datum. min(s) == max(s) # s must be non-empty Build a set. This runs at C speed and uses little extra memory but requires hashability and does not have an early-out. len(set(t))==1. At great cost, this handles NaNs and other objects with exotic equality relations. all(itertools.starmap(eq, itertools.product(s, repeat=2))) Pull out the first element and compare all the others to it, stopping at the first mismatch. Only disadvantage is that this doesn't run at C speed. it = iter(s) a = next(it, None) return all(a == b for b in it) Just count the first element. This is fast, simple, elegant. It runs at C speed, requires no additional memory, uses only equality tests, and makes only a single pass over the data. t.count(t[0]) == len(t)

不管怎样，这是最近在python想法邮件列表中出现的。事实证明，已经有一个itertools配方可以做到这一点

def all_equal(iterable):
    "Returns True if all the elements are equal to each other"
    g = groupby(iterable)
    return next(g, True) and not next(g, False)

据说它的性能非常好，有一些不错的属性。

短路:一旦发现第一个不相等的项，它就会停止从可迭代对象中消费项目。 不要求项是可哈希的。 它是懒惰的，只需要O(1)个额外的内存来进行检查。

换句话说，我不能把提出这个解决方案的功劳占为己有，甚至我也不能把找到它的功劳占为己有。

也许我低估了问题的严重性?检查列表中唯一值的长度。

lzt = [1,1,1,1,1,2]

if (len(set(lzt)) > 1):
    uniform = False
elif (len(set(lzt)) == 1):
    uniform = True
elif (not lzt):
    raise ValueError("List empty, get wrecked")

比使用set()处理序列(而不是可迭代对象)更快的解决方案是简单地计算第一个元素。这假设列表是非空的(但这是微不足道的检查，并决定什么结果应该在一个空列表)

x.count(x[0]) == len(x)

一些简单的基准:

>>> timeit.timeit('len(set(s1))<=1', 's1=[1]*5000', number=10000)
1.4383411407470703
>>> timeit.timeit('len(set(s1))<=1', 's1=[1]*4999+[2]', number=10000)
1.4765670299530029
>>> timeit.timeit('s1.count(s1[0])==len(s1)', 's1=[1]*5000', number=10000)
0.26274609565734863
>>> timeit.timeit('s1.count(s1[0])==len(s1)', 's1=[1]*4999+[2]', number=10000)
0.25654196739196777

你可以:

reduce(and_, (x==yourList[0] for x in yourList), True)

python让你导入operator.and_这样的操作符是相当烦人的。从python3开始，还需要导入functools.reduce。

(您不应该使用此方法，因为如果它发现不相等的值，它不会中断，而是会继续检查整个列表。这里只是作为完整性的回答。)