[Python-ideas] Fwd: Extremely weird itertools.permutations
MRAB
python at mrabarnett.plus.com
Sat Oct 12 04:34:33 CEST 2013
On 12/10/2013 02:55, MRAB wrote:
> On 12/10/2013 00:49, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> On 12 Oct 2013 08:45, "David Mertz" <mertz at gnosis.cx
>> <mailto:mertz at gnosis.cx>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I realize after reading
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6284396/permutations-with-unique-values
>> that my version was ALMOST right:
>> >
>> > def nonredundant_permutations(seq, r=None):
>> > last = ()
>> > for perm in permutations(sorted(seq), r):
>> > if perm > last:
>> > yield perm
>> > last = perm
>> >
>> > I can't look only for inequality, but must use the actual comparison.
>> >
>> > >>> ["".join(x) for x in nonredundant_permutations('aaabb',3)]
>> > ['aaa', 'aab', 'aba', 'abb', 'baa', 'bab', 'bba']
>> > >>> list(nonredundant_permutations([F(3,1), D(3.0), 3.0]))
>> > [(Fraction(3, 1), Decimal('3'), 3.0)]
>> >
>> > Of course, this approach DOES rely on the order in which
>> itertools.permutations() returns values. However, it's a bit more
>> compact than MRAB's version.
>>
>> As there is no requirement that entries in a sequence handled by
>> itertools.permutations be sortable, so the original question of why this
>> isn't done by default has been answered (the general solution risks
>> consuming too much memory, while the memory efficient solution
>> constrains the domain to only sortable sequences).
>>
> OK, here's a new implementation:
>
[snip]
I've just realised that I don't need to sort them at all.
Here's a new improved implementation:
def unique_permutations(iterable, count=None):
def perm(items, count):
if count:
seen = set()
for i, item in enumerate(items):
if item not in seen:
for p in perm(items[ : i] + items[i + 1 : ], count
- 1):
yield [item] + p
seen.add(item)
else:
yield []
items = list(iterable)
if count is None:
count = len(items)
yield from perm(items, count)
More information about the Python-ideas
mailing list