Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted.
Is there a ternary conditional operator in Python?
Yes, it was added in version 2.5. The expression syntax is:
a if condition else b
First condition is evaluated, then exactly one of either a or b is evaluated and returned based on the Boolean value of condition. If condition evaluates to True, then a is evaluated and returned but b is ignored, or else when b is evaluated and returned but a is ignored.
This allows short-circuiting because when condition is true only a is evaluated and b is not evaluated at all, but when condition is false only b is evaluated and a is not evaluated at all.
For example:
>>> 'true' if True else 'false'
'true'
>>> 'true' if False else 'false'
'false'
Note that conditionals are an expression, not a statement. This means you can't use statements such as pass, or assignments with = (or "augmented" assignments like +=), within a conditional expression:
>>> pass if False else pass
File "<stdin>", line 1
pass if False else pass
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>>> # Python parses this as `x = (1 if False else y) = 2`
>>> # The `(1 if False else x)` part is actually valid, but
>>> # it can't be on the left-hand side of `=`.
>>> x = 1 if False else y = 2
File "<stdin>", line 1
SyntaxError: cannot assign to conditional expression
>>> # If we parenthesize it instead...
>>> (x = 1) if False else (y = 2)
File "<stdin>", line 1
(x = 1) if False else (y = 2)
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
(In 3.8 and above, the := "walrus" operator allows simple assignment of values as an expression, which is then compatible with this syntax. But please don't write code like that; it will quickly become very difficult to understand.)
Similarly, because it is an expression, the else part is mandatory:
# Invalid syntax: we didn't specify what the value should be if the
# condition isn't met. It doesn't matter if we can verify that
# ahead of time.
a if True
You can, however, use conditional expressions to assign a variable like so:
x = a if True else b
Or for example to return a value:
# Of course we should just use the standard library `max`;
# this is just for demonstration purposes.
def my_max(a, b):
return a if a > b else b
Think of the conditional expression as switching between two values. We can use it when we are in a 'one value or another' situation, where we will do the same thing with the result, regardless of whether the condition is met. We use the expression to compute the value, and then do something with it. If you need to do something different depending on the condition, then use a normal if statement instead.
Keep in mind that it's frowned upon by some Pythonistas for several reasons:
The order of the arguments is different from those of the classic condition ? a : b ternary operator from many other languages (such as C, C++, Go, Perl, Ruby, Java, JavaScript, etc.), which may lead to bugs when people unfamiliar with Python's "surprising" behaviour use it (they may reverse the argument order).
Some find it "unwieldy", since it goes contrary to the normal flow of thought (thinking of the condition first and then the effects).
Stylistic reasons. (Although the 'inline if' can be really useful, and make your script more concise, it really does complicate your code)
If you're having trouble remembering the order, then remember that when read aloud, you (almost) say what you mean. For example, x = 4 if b > 8 else 9 is read aloud as x will be 4 if b is greater than 8 otherwise 9.
Official documentation:
Conditional expressions
Is there an equivalent of C’s ”?:” ternary operator?
You can index into a tuple:
(falseValue, trueValue)[test]
test needs to return True or False.
It might be safer to always implement it as:
(falseValue, trueValue)[test == True]
or you can use the built-in bool() to assure a Boolean value:
(falseValue, trueValue)[bool(<expression>)]
For versions prior to 2.5, there's the trick:
[expression] and [on_true] or [on_false]
It can give wrong results when on_true has a false Boolean value.1
Although it does have the benefit of evaluating expressions left to right, which is clearer in my opinion.
1. Is there an equivalent of C’s ”?:” ternary operator?
<expression 1> if <condition> else <expression 2>
a = 1
b = 2
1 if a > b else -1
# Output is -1
1 if a > b else -1 if a < b else 0
# Output is -1
From the documentation:
Conditional expressions (sometimes called a “ternary operator”) have the lowest priority of all Python operations.
The expression x if C else y first evaluates the condition, C (not x); if C is true, x is evaluated and its value is returned; otherwise, y is evaluated and its value is returned.
See PEP 308 for more details about conditional expressions.
New since version 2.5.
An operator for a conditional expression in Python was added in 2006 as part of Python Enhancement Proposal 308. Its form differs from common ?: operator and it looks like this:
<expression1> if <condition> else <expression2>
which is equivalent to:
if <condition>: <expression1> else: <expression2>
Here is an example:
result = x if a > b else y
Another syntax which can be used (compatible with versions before 2.5):
result = (lambda:y, lambda:x)[a > b]()
where operands are lazily evaluated.
Another way is by indexing a tuple (which isn't consistent with the conditional operator of most other languages):
result = (y, x)[a > b]
or explicitly constructed dictionary:
result = {True: x, False: y}[a > b]
Another (less reliable), but simpler method is to use and and or operators:
result = (a > b) and x or y
however this won't work if x would be False.
A possible workaround is to make x and y lists or tuples as in the following:
result = ((a > b) and [x] or [y])[0]
or:
result = ((a > b) and (x,) or (y,))[0]
If you're working with dictionaries, instead of using a ternary conditional, you can take advantage of get(key, default), for example:
shell = os.environ.get('SHELL', "/bin/sh")
Source: ?: in Python at Wikipedia
Unfortunately, the
(falseValue, trueValue)[test]
solution doesn't have short-circuit behaviour; thus both falseValue and trueValue are evaluated regardless of the condition. This could be suboptimal or even buggy (i.e. both trueValue and falseValue could be methods and have side effects).
One solution to this would be
(lambda: falseValue, lambda: trueValue)[test]()
(execution delayed until the winner is known ;)), but it introduces inconsistency between callable and non-callable objects. In addition, it doesn't solve the case when using properties.
And so the story goes - choosing between three mentioned solutions is a trade-off between having the short-circuit feature, using at least Python 2.5 (IMHO, not a problem anymore) and not being prone to "trueValue-evaluates-to-false" errors.
Ternary operator in different programming languages
Here I just try to show some important differences in the ternary operator between a couple of programming languages.
Ternary operator in JavaScript
var a = true ? 1 : 0;
# 1
var b = false ? 1 : 0;
# 0
Ternary operator in Ruby
a = true ? 1 : 0
# 1
b = false ? 1 : 0
# 0
Ternary operator in Scala
val a = true ? 1 | 0
# 1
val b = false ? 1 | 0
# 0
Ternary operator in R programming
a <- if (TRUE) 1 else 0
# 1
b <- if (FALSE) 1 else 0
# 0
Ternary operator in Python
a = 1 if True else 0
# 1
b = 1 if False else 0
# 0
For Python 2.5 and newer there is a specific syntax:
[on_true] if [cond] else [on_false]
In older Pythons, a ternary operator is not implemented but it's possible to simulate it.
cond and on_true or on_false
Though there is a potential problem, which is if cond evaluates to True and on_true evaluates to False then on_false is returned instead of on_true. If you want this behaviour the method is OK, otherwise use this:
{True: on_true, False: on_false}[cond is True] # is True, not == True
which can be wrapped by:
def q(cond, on_true, on_false)
return {True: on_true, False: on_false}[cond is True]
and used this way:
q(cond, on_true, on_false)
It is compatible with all Python versions.
You might often find
cond and on_true or on_false
but this leads to a problem when on_true == 0
>>> x = 0
>>> print x == 0 and 0 or 1
1
>>> x = 1
>>> print x == 0 and 0 or 1
1
Where you would expect this result for a normal ternary operator:
>>> x = 0
>>> print 0 if x == 0 else 1
0
>>> x = 1
>>> print 0 if x == 0 else 1
1
Does Python have a ternary conditional operator?
Yes. From the grammar file:
test: or_test ['if' or_test 'else' test] | lambdef
The part of interest is:
or_test ['if' or_test 'else' test]
So, a ternary conditional operation is of the form:
expression1 if expression2 else expression3
expression3 will be lazily evaluated (that is, evaluated only if expression2 is false in a boolean context). And because of the recursive definition, you can chain them indefinitely (though it may considered bad style.)
expression1 if expression2 else expression3 if expression4 else expression5 # and so on
A note on usage:
Note that every if must be followed with an else. People learning list comprehensions and generator expressions may find this to be a difficult lesson to learn - the following will not work, as Python expects a third expression for an else:
[expression1 if expression2 for element in iterable]
# ^-- need an else here
which raises a SyntaxError: invalid syntax.
So the above is either an incomplete piece of logic (perhaps the user expects a no-op in the false condition) or what may be intended is to use expression2 as a filter - notes that the following is legal Python:
[expression1 for element in iterable if expression2]
expression2 works as a filter for the list comprehension, and is not a ternary conditional operator.
Alternative syntax for a more narrow case:
You may find it somewhat painful to write the following:
expression1 if expression1 else expression2
expression1 will have to be evaluated twice with the above usage. It can limit redundancy if it is simply a local variable. However, a common and performant Pythonic idiom for this use-case is to use or's shortcutting behavior:
expression1 or expression2
which is equivalent in semantics. Note that some style-guides may limit this usage on the grounds of clarity - it does pack a lot of meaning into very little syntax.
One of the alternatives to Python's conditional expression
"yes" if boolean else "no"
is the following:
{True: "yes", False: "no"}[boolean]
which has the following nice extension:
{True: "yes", False: "no", None: "maybe"}[boolean_or_none]
The shortest alternative remains
("no", "yes")[boolean]
which works because issubclass(bool, int).
Careful, though: the alternative to
yes() if boolean else no()
is not
(no(), yes())[boolean] # bad: BOTH no() and yes() are called
but
(no, yes)[boolean]()
This works fine as long as no and yes are to be called with exactly the same parameters. If they are not, like in
yes("ok") if boolean else no() # (1)
or in
yes("ok") if boolean else no("sorry") # (2)
then a similar alternative either does not exist (1) or is hardly viable (2). (In rare cases, depending on the context, something like
msg = ("sorry", "ok")[boolean]
(no, yes)[boolean](msg)
could make sense.)
Thanks to Radek Rojík for his comment
As already answered, yes, there is a ternary operator in Python:
<expression 1> if <condition> else <expression 2>
In many cases <expression 1> is also used as Boolean evaluated <condition>. Then you can use short-circuit evaluation.
a = 0
b = 1
# Instead of this:
x = a if a else b
# Evaluates as 'a if bool(a) else b'
# You could use short-circuit evaluation:
x = a or b
One big pro of short-circuit evaluation is the possibility of chaining more than two expressions:
x = a or b or c or d or e
When working with functions it is more different in detail:
# Evaluating functions:
def foo(x):
print('foo executed')
return x
def bar(y):
print('bar executed')
return y
def blubb(z):
print('blubb executed')
return z
# Ternary Operator expression 1 equals to False
print(foo(0) if foo(0) else bar(1))
''' foo and bar are executed once
foo executed
bar executed
1
'''
# Ternary Operator expression 1 equals to True
print(foo(2) if foo(2) else bar(3))
''' foo is executed twice!
foo executed
foo executed
2
'''
# Short-circuit evaluation second equals to True
print(foo(0) or bar(1) or blubb(2))
''' blubb is not executed
foo executed
bar executed
1
'''
# Short-circuit evaluation third equals to True
print(foo(0) or bar(0) or blubb(2))
'''
foo executed
bar executed
blubb executed
2
'''
# Short-circuit evaluation all equal to False
print(foo(0) or bar(0) or blubb(0))
''' Result is 0 (from blubb(0)) because no value equals to True
foo executed
bar executed
blubb executed
0
'''
PS: Of course, a short-circuit evaluation is not a ternary operator, but often the ternary is used in cases where the short circuit would be enough. It has a better readability and can be chained.
Simulating the Python ternary operator.
For example
a, b, x, y = 1, 2, 'a greather than b', 'b greater than a'
result = (lambda:y, lambda:x)[a > b]()
Output:
'b greater than a'
a if condition else b
Just memorize this pyramid if you have trouble remembering:
condition
if else
a b
The ternary conditional operator simply allows testing a condition in a single line replacing the multiline if-else making the code compact.
Syntax:
[on_true] if [expression] else [on_false]
1- Simple Method to use ternary operator:
# Program to demonstrate conditional operator
a, b = 10, 20
# Copy value of a in min if a < b else copy b
min = a if a < b else b
print(min) # Output: 10
2- Direct Method of using tuples, Dictionary, and lambda:
# Python program to demonstrate ternary operator
a, b = 10, 20
# Use tuple for selecting an item
print( (b, a) [a < b] )
# Use Dictionary for selecting an item
print({True: a, False: b} [a < b])
# lambda is more efficient than above two methods
# because in lambda we are assure that
# only one expression will be evaluated unlike in
# tuple and Dictionary
print((lambda: b, lambda: a)[a < b]()) # in output you should see three 10
3- Ternary operator can be written as nested if-else:
# Python program to demonstrate nested ternary operator
a, b = 10, 20
print ("Both a and b are equal" if a == b else "a is greater than b"
if a > b else "b is greater than a")
Above approach can be written as:
# Python program to demonstrate nested ternary operator
a, b = 10, 20
if a != b:
if a > b:
print("a is greater than b")
else:
print("b is greater than a")
else:
print("Both a and b are equal")
# Output: b is greater than a
Vinko Vrsalovic's answer is good enough. There is only one more thing:
Note that conditionals are an expression, not a statement. This means you can't use assignment statements or pass or other statements within a conditional expression
Walrus operator in Python 3.8
After the walrus operator was introduced in Python 3.8, something changed.
(a := 3) if True else (b := 5)
gives a = 3 and b is not defined,
(a := 3) if False else (b := 5)
gives a is not defined and b = 5, and
c = (a := 3) if False else (b := 5)
gives c = 5, a is not defined and b = 5.
Even if this may be ugly, assignments can be done inside conditional expressions after Python 3.8. Anyway, it is still better to use normal if statement instead in this case.
More a tip than an answer (I don't need to repeat the obvious for the hundredth time), but I sometimes use it as a one-liner shortcut in such constructs:
if conditionX:
print('yes')
else:
print('nah')
, becomes:
print('yes') if conditionX else print('nah')
Some (many :) may frown upon it as unpythonic (even, Ruby-ish :), but I personally find it more natural - i.e., how you'd express it normally, plus a bit more visually appealing in large blocks of code.
You can do this:
[condition] and [expression_1] or [expression_2];
Example:
print(number%2 and "odd" or "even")
This would print "odd" if the number is odd or "even" if the number is even.
The result: If condition is true, exp_1 is executed, else exp_2 is executed.
Note: 0, None, False, emptylist, and emptyString evaluates as False.
And any data other than 0 evaluates to True.
Here's how it works:
If the condition [condition] becomes "True", then expression_1 will be evaluated, but not expression_2.
If we "and" something with 0 (zero), the result will always to be false. So in the below statement,
0 and exp
The expression exp won't be evaluated at all since "and" with 0 will always evaluate to zero and there is no need to evaluate the expression. This is how the compiler itself works, in all languages.
In
1 or exp
the expression exp won't be evaluated at all since "or" with 1 will always be 1. So it won't bother to evaluate the expression exp since the result will be 1 anyway (compiler optimization methods).
But in case of
True and exp1 or exp2
The second expression exp2 won't be evaluated since True and exp1 would be True when exp1 isn't false.
Similarly in
False and exp1 or exp2
The expression exp1 won't be evaluated since False is equivalent to writing 0 and doing "and" with 0 would be 0 itself, but after exp1 since "or" is used, it will evaluate the expression exp2 after "or".
Note:- This kind of branching using "or" and "and" can only be used when the expression_1 doesn't have a Truth value of False (or 0 or None or emptylist [ ] or emptystring ' '.) since if expression_1 becomes False, then the expression_2 will be evaluated because of the presence "or" between exp_1 and exp_2.
In case you still want to make it work for all the cases regardless of what exp_1 and exp_2 truth values are, do this:
[condition] and ([expression_1] or 1) or [expression_2];
Many programming languages derived from C usually have the following syntax of the ternary conditional operator:
<condition> ? <expression1> : <expression2>
At first, the Python's benevolent dictator for life (I mean Guido van Rossum, of course) rejected it (as non-Pythonic style), since it's quite hard to understand for people not used to C language. Also, the colon sign : already has many uses in Python. After PEP 308 was approved, Python finally received its own shortcut conditional expression (what we use now):
<expression1> if <condition> else <expression2>
So, firstly it evaluates the condition. If it returns True, expression1 will be evaluated to give the result, otherwise expression2 will be evaluated. Due to lazy evaluation mechanics – only one expression will be executed.
Here are some examples (conditions will be evaluated from left to right):
pressure = 10
print('High' if pressure < 20 else 'Critical')
# Result is 'High'
Ternary operators can be chained in series:
pressure = 5
print('Normal' if pressure < 10 else 'High' if pressure < 20 else 'Critical')
# Result is 'Normal'
The following one is the same as previous one:
pressure = 5
if pressure < 20:
if pressure < 10:
print('Normal')
else:
print('High')
else:
print('Critical')
# Result is 'Normal'
Yes, Python have a ternary operator, here is the syntax and an example code to demonstrate the same :)
#[On true] if [expression] else[On false]
# if the expression evaluates to true then it will pass On true otherwise On false
a = input("Enter the First Number ")
b = input("Enter the Second Number ")
print("A is Bigger") if a>b else print("B is Bigger")
Other answers correctly talk about the Python ternary operator. I would like to complement by mentioning a scenario for which the ternary operator is often used, but for which there is a better idiom. This is the scenario of using a default value.
Suppose we want to use option_value with a default value if it is not set:
run_algorithm(option_value if option_value is not None else 10)
or, if option_value is never set to a falsy value (0, "", etc.), simply
run_algorithm(option_value if option_value else 10)
However, in this case an ever better solution is simply to write
run_algorithm(option_value or 10)
The syntax for the ternary operator in Python is:
[on_true] if [expression] else [on_false]
Using that syntax, here is how we would rewrite the code above using Python’s ternary operator:
game_type = 'home'
shirt = 'white' if game_type == 'home' else 'green'
It's still pretty clear, but much shorter. Note that the expression could be any type of expression, including a function call, that returns a value that evaluates to True or False.
Python has a ternary form for assignments; however there may be even a shorter form that people should be aware of.
It's very common to need to assign to a variable one value or another depending on a condition.
>>> li1 = None
>>> li2 = [1, 2, 3]
>>>
>>> if li1:
... a = li1
... else:
... a = li2
...
>>> a
[1, 2, 3]
^ This is the long form for doing such assignments.
Below is the ternary form. But this isn't the most succinct way - see the last example.
>>> a = li1 if li1 else li2
>>>
>>> a
[1, 2, 3]
>>>
With Python, you can simply use or for alternative assignments.
>>> a = li1 or li2
>>>
>>> a
[1, 2, 3]
>>>
The above works since li1 is None and the interpreter treats that as False in logic expressions. The interpreter then moves on and evaluates the second expression, which is not None and it's not an empty list - so it gets assigned to a.
This also works with empty lists. For instance, if you want to assign a whichever list has items.
>>> li1 = []
>>> li2 = [1, 2, 3]
>>>
>>> a = li1 or li2
>>>
>>> a
[1, 2, 3]
>>>
Knowing this, you can simply such assignments whenever you encounter them. This also works with strings and other iterables. You could assign a whichever string isn't empty.
>>> s1 = ''
>>> s2 = 'hello world'
>>>
>>> a = s1 or s2
>>>
>>> a
'hello world'
>>>
I always liked the C ternary syntax, but Python takes it a step further!
I understand that some may say this isn't a good stylistic choice, because it relies on mechanics that aren't immediately apparent to all developers. I personally disagree with that viewpoint. Python is a syntax-rich language with lots of idiomatic tricks that aren't immediately apparent to the dabbler. But the more you learn and understand the mechanics of the underlying system, the more you appreciate it.
Pythonic way of doing the things:
"true" if var else "false"
But there always exists a different way of doing a ternary condition too:
"true" and var or "false"
There are multiple ways. The simplest one is to use the condition inside the "print" method.
You can use
print("Twenty" if number == 20 else "Not twenty")
Which is equivalent to:
if number == 20:
print("Twenty")
else:
print("Not twenty")
In this way, more than two statements are also possible to print. For example:
if number == 20:
print("Twenty")
elif number < 20:
print("Lesser")
elif 30 > number > 20:
print("Between")
else:
print("Greater")
can be written as:
print("Twenty" if number == 20 else "Lesser" if number < 20 else "Between" if 30 > number > 20 else "Greater")
The if else-if version can be written as:
sample_set="train" if "Train" in full_path else ("test" if "Test" in full_path else "validation")
Yes, it has, but it's different from C-syntax-like programming languages (which is condition ? value_if_true : value_if_false
In Python, it goes like this: value_if_true if condition else value_if_false
Example: even_or_odd = "even" if x % 2 == 0 else "odd"
A neat way to chain multiple operators:
f = lambda x,y: 'greater' if x > y else 'less' if y > x else 'equal'
array = [(0,0),(0,1),(1,0),(1,1)]
for a in array:
x, y = a[0], a[1]
print(f(x,y))
# Output is:
# equal,
# less,
# greater,
# equal
I find the default Python syntax val = a if cond else b cumbersome, so sometimes I do this:
iif = lambda (cond, a, b): a if cond else b
# So I can then use it like:
val = iif(cond, a, b)
Of course, it has the downside of always evaluating both sides (a and b), but the syntax is way clearer to me.
How can I check if x is in an array without iterating over the entire array, using Go? Does the language have a construct for this?
Like in Python:
if "x" in array:
# do something
There is no built-in operator to do it in Go. You need to iterate over the array. You can write your own function to do it, like this:
func stringInSlice(a string, list []string) bool {
for _, b := range list {
if b == a {
return true
}
}
return false
}
Or in Go 1.18 or newer, you can use slices.Contains (from golang.org/x/exp/slices).
If you want to be able to check for membership without iterating over the whole list, you need to use a map instead of an array or slice, like this:
visitedURL := map[string]bool {
"http://www.google.com": true,
"https://paypal.com": true,
}
if visitedURL[thisSite] {
fmt.Println("Already been here.")
}
Another solution if the list contains static values.
eg: checking for a valid value from a list of valid values:
func IsValidCategory(category string) bool {
switch category {
case
"auto",
"news",
"sport",
"music":
return true
}
return false
}
This is quote from the book "Programming in Go: Creating Applications for the 21st Century":
Using a simple linear search like this is the only option for unsorted
data and is fine for small slices (up to hundreds of items). But for
larger slices—especially if we are performing searches repeatedly—the
linear search is very inefficient, on average requiring half the items
to be compared each time.
Go provides a sort.Search() method which uses the binary search
algorithm: This requires the comparison of only log2(n) items (where n
is the number of items) each time. To put this in perspective, a
linear search of 1000000 items requires 500000 comparisons on average,
with a worst case of 1000000 comparisons; a binary search needs at
most 20 comparisons, even in the worst case.
files := []string{"Test.conf", "util.go", "Makefile", "misc.go", "main.go"}
target := "Makefile"
sort.Strings(files)
i := sort.Search(len(files),
func(i int) bool { return files[i] >= target })
if i < len(files) && files[i] == target {
fmt.Printf("found \"%s\" at files[%d]\n", files[i], i)
}
https://play.golang.org/p/UIndYQ8FeW
Just had a similar question and decided to try out some of the suggestions in this thread.
I've benchmarked best and worst-case scenarios of 3 types of lookup:
using a map
using a list
using a switch statement
Here's the function code:
func belongsToMap(lookup string) bool {
list := map[string]bool{
"900898296857": true,
"900898302052": true,
"900898296492": true,
"900898296850": true,
"900898296703": true,
"900898296633": true,
"900898296613": true,
"900898296615": true,
"900898296620": true,
"900898296636": true,
}
if _, ok := list[lookup]; ok {
return true
} else {
return false
}
}
func belongsToList(lookup string) bool {
list := []string{
"900898296857",
"900898302052",
"900898296492",
"900898296850",
"900898296703",
"900898296633",
"900898296613",
"900898296615",
"900898296620",
"900898296636",
}
for _, val := range list {
if val == lookup {
return true
}
}
return false
}
func belongsToSwitch(lookup string) bool {
switch lookup {
case
"900898296857",
"900898302052",
"900898296492",
"900898296850",
"900898296703",
"900898296633",
"900898296613",
"900898296615",
"900898296620",
"900898296636":
return true
}
return false
}
Best-case scenarios pick the first item in lists, worst-case ones use nonexistent value.
Here are the results:
BenchmarkBelongsToMapWorstCase-4 2000000 787 ns/op
BenchmarkBelongsToSwitchWorstCase-4 2000000000 0.35 ns/op
BenchmarkBelongsToListWorstCase-4 100000000 14.7 ns/op
BenchmarkBelongsToMapBestCase-4 2000000 683 ns/op
BenchmarkBelongsToSwitchBestCase-4 100000000 10.6 ns/op
BenchmarkBelongsToListBestCase-4 100000000 10.4 ns/op
Switch wins all the way, worst case is surpassingly quicker than best case.
Maps are the worst and list is closer to switch.
So the moral is:
If you have a static, reasonably small list, switch statement is the way to go.
The above example using sort is close, but in the case of strings simply use SearchString:
files := []string{"Test.conf", "util.go", "Makefile", "misc.go", "main.go"}
target := "Makefile"
sort.Strings(files)
i := sort.SearchStrings(files, target)
if i < len(files) && files[i] == target {
fmt.Printf("found \"%s\" at files[%d]\n", files[i], i)
}
https://golang.org/pkg/sort/#SearchStrings
This is as close as I can get to the natural feel of Python's "in" operator. You have to define your own type. Then you can extend the functionality of that type by adding a method like "has" which behaves like you'd hope.
package main
import "fmt"
type StrSlice []string
func (list StrSlice) Has(a string) bool {
for _, b := range list {
if b == a {
return true
}
}
return false
}
func main() {
var testList = StrSlice{"The", "big", "dog", "has", "fleas"}
if testList.Has("dog") {
fmt.Println("Yay!")
}
}
I have a utility library where I define a few common things like this for several types of slices, like those containing integers or my own other structs.
Yes, it runs in linear time, but that's not the point. The point is to ask and learn what common language constructs Go has and doesn't have. It's a good exercise. Whether this answer is silly or useful is up to the reader.
Another option is using a map as a set. You use just the keys and having the value be something like a boolean that's always true. Then you can easily check if the map contains the key or not. This is useful if you need the behavior of a set, where if you add a value multiple times it's only in the set once.
Here's a simple example where I add random numbers as keys to a map. If the same number is generated more than once it doesn't matter, it will only appear in the final map once. Then I use a simple if check to see if a key is in the map or not.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"math/rand"
)
func main() {
var MAX int = 10
m := make(map[int]bool)
for i := 0; i <= MAX; i++ {
m[rand.Intn(MAX)] = true
}
for i := 0; i <= MAX; i++ {
if _, ok := m[i]; ok {
fmt.Printf("%v is in map\n", i)
} else {
fmt.Printf("%v is not in map\n", i)
}
}
}
Here it is on the go playground
In Go 1.18+, you can now declare generic Contains function which is also implemented in the experimental slice function. It works for any comparable type
func Contains[T comparable](arr []T, x T) bool {
for _, v := range arr {
if v == x {
return true
}
}
return false
}
and use it like this:
if Contains(arr, "x") {
// do something
}
// or
if slices.Contains(arr, "x") {
// do something
}
which I found here
try lo: https://github.com/samber/lo#contains
present := lo.Contains[int]([]int{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, 5)