Calculating lists bottom up











up vote
0
down vote

favorite
1












I'm trying calculate (using operators) the innermost list then the second innermost list etc. until there is no more lists. I'm also trying to do this so that it should be able to calculate the list no matter how many nested lists that's in it.



import operator

lst = [['x1', '*', ['x2', '*', 'x3']], '-', 'x3']
dictionary = {'x1': 4, 'x2': 5, 'x3': 7}
operator_dictionary = {"+": operator.add, "-": operator.sub, "*":
operator.mul, "/": operator.truediv}

def BINARYEXPR(program, dictionary):
for i in range(len(program)):
if isinstance(program[i],list):
return BINARYEXPR(program[i],dictionary)

operator = operator_dictionary[program[1]]
operand1 = dictionary[program[0]]
print("operand1: ", operand1)
operand2 = dictionary[program[2]]
print("operand2: ", operand2)

return operator(operand1,operand2)

print (BINARYEXPR(lst,dictionary))


So what I wanted to do here was to first calculate x2*x3 (5*7) which should give us 35, then calculate x1*35 (4*35) which should give us 140 and then finally take 140 - x3 (140-7) which should return 133. But instead I only managed to calculate the innermost list and hit return operator(operand1,operand2) which ends the function.



So what I'm stuck at is the recursion as I can't seem to figure out how to move on to the second innermost list whenever the innermost list has been calculated.










share|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    I'm trying calculate (using operators) the innermost list then the second innermost list etc. until there is no more lists. I'm also trying to do this so that it should be able to calculate the list no matter how many nested lists that's in it.



    import operator

    lst = [['x1', '*', ['x2', '*', 'x3']], '-', 'x3']
    dictionary = {'x1': 4, 'x2': 5, 'x3': 7}
    operator_dictionary = {"+": operator.add, "-": operator.sub, "*":
    operator.mul, "/": operator.truediv}

    def BINARYEXPR(program, dictionary):
    for i in range(len(program)):
    if isinstance(program[i],list):
    return BINARYEXPR(program[i],dictionary)

    operator = operator_dictionary[program[1]]
    operand1 = dictionary[program[0]]
    print("operand1: ", operand1)
    operand2 = dictionary[program[2]]
    print("operand2: ", operand2)

    return operator(operand1,operand2)

    print (BINARYEXPR(lst,dictionary))


    So what I wanted to do here was to first calculate x2*x3 (5*7) which should give us 35, then calculate x1*35 (4*35) which should give us 140 and then finally take 140 - x3 (140-7) which should return 133. But instead I only managed to calculate the innermost list and hit return operator(operand1,operand2) which ends the function.



    So what I'm stuck at is the recursion as I can't seem to figure out how to move on to the second innermost list whenever the innermost list has been calculated.










    share|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      I'm trying calculate (using operators) the innermost list then the second innermost list etc. until there is no more lists. I'm also trying to do this so that it should be able to calculate the list no matter how many nested lists that's in it.



      import operator

      lst = [['x1', '*', ['x2', '*', 'x3']], '-', 'x3']
      dictionary = {'x1': 4, 'x2': 5, 'x3': 7}
      operator_dictionary = {"+": operator.add, "-": operator.sub, "*":
      operator.mul, "/": operator.truediv}

      def BINARYEXPR(program, dictionary):
      for i in range(len(program)):
      if isinstance(program[i],list):
      return BINARYEXPR(program[i],dictionary)

      operator = operator_dictionary[program[1]]
      operand1 = dictionary[program[0]]
      print("operand1: ", operand1)
      operand2 = dictionary[program[2]]
      print("operand2: ", operand2)

      return operator(operand1,operand2)

      print (BINARYEXPR(lst,dictionary))


      So what I wanted to do here was to first calculate x2*x3 (5*7) which should give us 35, then calculate x1*35 (4*35) which should give us 140 and then finally take 140 - x3 (140-7) which should return 133. But instead I only managed to calculate the innermost list and hit return operator(operand1,operand2) which ends the function.



      So what I'm stuck at is the recursion as I can't seem to figure out how to move on to the second innermost list whenever the innermost list has been calculated.










      share|improve this question













      I'm trying calculate (using operators) the innermost list then the second innermost list etc. until there is no more lists. I'm also trying to do this so that it should be able to calculate the list no matter how many nested lists that's in it.



      import operator

      lst = [['x1', '*', ['x2', '*', 'x3']], '-', 'x3']
      dictionary = {'x1': 4, 'x2': 5, 'x3': 7}
      operator_dictionary = {"+": operator.add, "-": operator.sub, "*":
      operator.mul, "/": operator.truediv}

      def BINARYEXPR(program, dictionary):
      for i in range(len(program)):
      if isinstance(program[i],list):
      return BINARYEXPR(program[i],dictionary)

      operator = operator_dictionary[program[1]]
      operand1 = dictionary[program[0]]
      print("operand1: ", operand1)
      operand2 = dictionary[program[2]]
      print("operand2: ", operand2)

      return operator(operand1,operand2)

      print (BINARYEXPR(lst,dictionary))


      So what I wanted to do here was to first calculate x2*x3 (5*7) which should give us 35, then calculate x1*35 (4*35) which should give us 140 and then finally take 140 - x3 (140-7) which should return 133. But instead I only managed to calculate the innermost list and hit return operator(operand1,operand2) which ends the function.



      So what I'm stuck at is the recursion as I can't seem to figure out how to move on to the second innermost list whenever the innermost list has been calculated.







      python list recursion






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 19 at 20:56









      Programming_Zeus

      33




      33
























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          A recursive function as follows should do the job:



          import operator


          lst = [['x1', '*', ['x2', '*', 'x3']], '-', 'x3']
          dictionary = {'x1': 4, 'x2': 5, 'x3': 7}
          operator_dictionary = {"+": operator.add, "-": operator.sub, "*":
          operator.mul, "/": operator.truediv}


          def calc(lst):
          if type(lst) == str:
          return dictionary[lst]

          if len(lst) != 3:
          raise ValueError("Incorrect expression: {}".format(lst))

          op = operator_dictionary[lst[1]]
          return op(calc(lst[0]), calc(lst[2]))


          Since you are using infix notation, each expression has three components: expression, operator, expression. The function works by assuming the 0th and 2nd elements are operands and the 1st element is the operator. We calculate the sub-expressions recursively, and then apply the operation. Also, if at any point our function receives a list with length different than 3, we throw since this cannot be a well-formed expression.






          share|improve this answer





















          • I don't think giving the user a completely different solution is an appropriate answer to their question.
            – ritlew
            Nov 19 at 21:09










          • @ritlew What do you mean by a completely different answer? The only main difference between this one and the one OP originally written is that they have forgotten the recursive call to the function, which I provide.
            – eozd
            Nov 19 at 21:11












          • You didn't fix the users code, you provided your own to accomplish the same task that the user was trying to code for themselves. Your code looks nothing like OP's.
            – ritlew
            Nov 19 at 21:15










          • Great solution, thank you!
            – Programming_Zeus
            Nov 19 at 21:26











          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          });
          });
          }, "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53382502%2fcalculating-lists-bottom-up%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          A recursive function as follows should do the job:



          import operator


          lst = [['x1', '*', ['x2', '*', 'x3']], '-', 'x3']
          dictionary = {'x1': 4, 'x2': 5, 'x3': 7}
          operator_dictionary = {"+": operator.add, "-": operator.sub, "*":
          operator.mul, "/": operator.truediv}


          def calc(lst):
          if type(lst) == str:
          return dictionary[lst]

          if len(lst) != 3:
          raise ValueError("Incorrect expression: {}".format(lst))

          op = operator_dictionary[lst[1]]
          return op(calc(lst[0]), calc(lst[2]))


          Since you are using infix notation, each expression has three components: expression, operator, expression. The function works by assuming the 0th and 2nd elements are operands and the 1st element is the operator. We calculate the sub-expressions recursively, and then apply the operation. Also, if at any point our function receives a list with length different than 3, we throw since this cannot be a well-formed expression.






          share|improve this answer





















          • I don't think giving the user a completely different solution is an appropriate answer to their question.
            – ritlew
            Nov 19 at 21:09










          • @ritlew What do you mean by a completely different answer? The only main difference between this one and the one OP originally written is that they have forgotten the recursive call to the function, which I provide.
            – eozd
            Nov 19 at 21:11












          • You didn't fix the users code, you provided your own to accomplish the same task that the user was trying to code for themselves. Your code looks nothing like OP's.
            – ritlew
            Nov 19 at 21:15










          • Great solution, thank you!
            – Programming_Zeus
            Nov 19 at 21:26















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          A recursive function as follows should do the job:



          import operator


          lst = [['x1', '*', ['x2', '*', 'x3']], '-', 'x3']
          dictionary = {'x1': 4, 'x2': 5, 'x3': 7}
          operator_dictionary = {"+": operator.add, "-": operator.sub, "*":
          operator.mul, "/": operator.truediv}


          def calc(lst):
          if type(lst) == str:
          return dictionary[lst]

          if len(lst) != 3:
          raise ValueError("Incorrect expression: {}".format(lst))

          op = operator_dictionary[lst[1]]
          return op(calc(lst[0]), calc(lst[2]))


          Since you are using infix notation, each expression has three components: expression, operator, expression. The function works by assuming the 0th and 2nd elements are operands and the 1st element is the operator. We calculate the sub-expressions recursively, and then apply the operation. Also, if at any point our function receives a list with length different than 3, we throw since this cannot be a well-formed expression.






          share|improve this answer





















          • I don't think giving the user a completely different solution is an appropriate answer to their question.
            – ritlew
            Nov 19 at 21:09










          • @ritlew What do you mean by a completely different answer? The only main difference between this one and the one OP originally written is that they have forgotten the recursive call to the function, which I provide.
            – eozd
            Nov 19 at 21:11












          • You didn't fix the users code, you provided your own to accomplish the same task that the user was trying to code for themselves. Your code looks nothing like OP's.
            – ritlew
            Nov 19 at 21:15










          • Great solution, thank you!
            – Programming_Zeus
            Nov 19 at 21:26













          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          A recursive function as follows should do the job:



          import operator


          lst = [['x1', '*', ['x2', '*', 'x3']], '-', 'x3']
          dictionary = {'x1': 4, 'x2': 5, 'x3': 7}
          operator_dictionary = {"+": operator.add, "-": operator.sub, "*":
          operator.mul, "/": operator.truediv}


          def calc(lst):
          if type(lst) == str:
          return dictionary[lst]

          if len(lst) != 3:
          raise ValueError("Incorrect expression: {}".format(lst))

          op = operator_dictionary[lst[1]]
          return op(calc(lst[0]), calc(lst[2]))


          Since you are using infix notation, each expression has three components: expression, operator, expression. The function works by assuming the 0th and 2nd elements are operands and the 1st element is the operator. We calculate the sub-expressions recursively, and then apply the operation. Also, if at any point our function receives a list with length different than 3, we throw since this cannot be a well-formed expression.






          share|improve this answer












          A recursive function as follows should do the job:



          import operator


          lst = [['x1', '*', ['x2', '*', 'x3']], '-', 'x3']
          dictionary = {'x1': 4, 'x2': 5, 'x3': 7}
          operator_dictionary = {"+": operator.add, "-": operator.sub, "*":
          operator.mul, "/": operator.truediv}


          def calc(lst):
          if type(lst) == str:
          return dictionary[lst]

          if len(lst) != 3:
          raise ValueError("Incorrect expression: {}".format(lst))

          op = operator_dictionary[lst[1]]
          return op(calc(lst[0]), calc(lst[2]))


          Since you are using infix notation, each expression has three components: expression, operator, expression. The function works by assuming the 0th and 2nd elements are operands and the 1st element is the operator. We calculate the sub-expressions recursively, and then apply the operation. Also, if at any point our function receives a list with length different than 3, we throw since this cannot be a well-formed expression.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 19 at 21:07









          eozd

          8941515




          8941515












          • I don't think giving the user a completely different solution is an appropriate answer to their question.
            – ritlew
            Nov 19 at 21:09










          • @ritlew What do you mean by a completely different answer? The only main difference between this one and the one OP originally written is that they have forgotten the recursive call to the function, which I provide.
            – eozd
            Nov 19 at 21:11












          • You didn't fix the users code, you provided your own to accomplish the same task that the user was trying to code for themselves. Your code looks nothing like OP's.
            – ritlew
            Nov 19 at 21:15










          • Great solution, thank you!
            – Programming_Zeus
            Nov 19 at 21:26


















          • I don't think giving the user a completely different solution is an appropriate answer to their question.
            – ritlew
            Nov 19 at 21:09










          • @ritlew What do you mean by a completely different answer? The only main difference between this one and the one OP originally written is that they have forgotten the recursive call to the function, which I provide.
            – eozd
            Nov 19 at 21:11












          • You didn't fix the users code, you provided your own to accomplish the same task that the user was trying to code for themselves. Your code looks nothing like OP's.
            – ritlew
            Nov 19 at 21:15










          • Great solution, thank you!
            – Programming_Zeus
            Nov 19 at 21:26
















          I don't think giving the user a completely different solution is an appropriate answer to their question.
          – ritlew
          Nov 19 at 21:09




          I don't think giving the user a completely different solution is an appropriate answer to their question.
          – ritlew
          Nov 19 at 21:09












          @ritlew What do you mean by a completely different answer? The only main difference between this one and the one OP originally written is that they have forgotten the recursive call to the function, which I provide.
          – eozd
          Nov 19 at 21:11






          @ritlew What do you mean by a completely different answer? The only main difference between this one and the one OP originally written is that they have forgotten the recursive call to the function, which I provide.
          – eozd
          Nov 19 at 21:11














          You didn't fix the users code, you provided your own to accomplish the same task that the user was trying to code for themselves. Your code looks nothing like OP's.
          – ritlew
          Nov 19 at 21:15




          You didn't fix the users code, you provided your own to accomplish the same task that the user was trying to code for themselves. Your code looks nothing like OP's.
          – ritlew
          Nov 19 at 21:15












          Great solution, thank you!
          – Programming_Zeus
          Nov 19 at 21:26




          Great solution, thank you!
          – Programming_Zeus
          Nov 19 at 21:26


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53382502%2fcalculating-lists-bottom-up%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Wiesbaden

          Marschland

          Dieringhausen