Multi-dimensional list initialization
clp2 at rebertia.com
Mon Nov 5 08:07:07 CET 2012
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Demian Brecht <demianbrecht at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, here I was thinking "oh, this is a nice, easy way to initialize a 4D matrix" (running 2.7.3, non-core libs not allowed):
> m = [[None] * 4] * 4
> The way to get what I was after was:
> m = [[None] * 4, [None] * 4, [None] * 4, [None * 4]]
> (Obviously, I could have just hardcoded the initialization, but I'm too lazy to type all that out ;))
> The behaviour I encountered seems a little contradictory to me.
> [None] * 4 creates four distinct elements in a single array
> while [[None] * 4] * 4 creates one distinct array of four distinct elements, with three references to it:
Incorrect. In /both/ cases, the result is a list of length 4, whose
elements are 4 (references to) the exact same object as the original
Put simply, the list multiplication operator never copies objects; it
just makes additional references to them.
However, unlike a list object (as in your latter example), the object
`None` is completely immutable (and what's more, a singleton value),
so you just-so-happen *not to be able to* run into the same problem of
mutating an object (assignment to an index of a list constitutes
mutation of that list) that is referenced in multiple places, for you
cannot mutate None in the first place!:
>>> x = None
>>> x.a = 42
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'a'
>>> # it doesn't overload any mutating operators:
['__hash__', '__repr__', '__doc__']
>>> # and it obviously has no instance variables,
>>> # so, we can't modify it in any way whatsoever!
(Lists, on the other hand, define item assignment, .pop(), .remove(),
and a few other mutator methods.)
>>>> a = [None] * 4
>>>> a = 'a'
> ['a', None, None, None]
>>>> m = [[None] * 4] * 4
>>>> m = 'm'
> [['m', None, None, None], ['m', None, None, None], ['m', None, None, None], ['m', None, None, None]]
> Is this expected behavior
Yes. It's also a FAQ:
> and if so, why?
It's a general (albeit AFAIK unstated) principle that Python never
copies objects unless you explicitly ask it to. You have encountered
one example of this rule in action.
> In my mind either result makes sense, but the inconsistency is what throws me off.
It is perfectly consistent, once you understand what list
multiplication actually does.
More information about the Python-list