Insert a number in a sorted list and return the list with the number at the correct index
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I feel like the title is a bit wordy. What I have defined here is a function that takes two parameters:
- a list that contains valued sorted from smallest to biggest
- a number to insert at the right index so that the returned list print its values from smallest to biggest
NOTE: Recursion is mandatory
def insert(lst, to_insert):
"""
parameters : lst of type list, that contains values sorted from smallest to largest;
to_insert : represents a value
returns : same list with the to_insert value positioned at the right index
in order for the list to remain sorted from smallest to largest;
"""
if len(lst) == 1:
return
if lst[0] < to_insert and to_insert < lst[1]:
lst[3] = to_insert
return [lst[0]] + [lst[3]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
else:
return [lst[0]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
print(insert([1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9], 6))
The list outputs the following :
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] #not sure where 9 got left
How do I optimize this function, using only simple functions.
python sorting recursion
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I feel like the title is a bit wordy. What I have defined here is a function that takes two parameters:
- a list that contains valued sorted from smallest to biggest
- a number to insert at the right index so that the returned list print its values from smallest to biggest
NOTE: Recursion is mandatory
def insert(lst, to_insert):
"""
parameters : lst of type list, that contains values sorted from smallest to largest;
to_insert : represents a value
returns : same list with the to_insert value positioned at the right index
in order for the list to remain sorted from smallest to largest;
"""
if len(lst) == 1:
return
if lst[0] < to_insert and to_insert < lst[1]:
lst[3] = to_insert
return [lst[0]] + [lst[3]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
else:
return [lst[0]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
print(insert([1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9], 6))
The list outputs the following :
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] #not sure where 9 got left
How do I optimize this function, using only simple functions.
python sorting recursion
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I feel like the title is a bit wordy. What I have defined here is a function that takes two parameters:
- a list that contains valued sorted from smallest to biggest
- a number to insert at the right index so that the returned list print its values from smallest to biggest
NOTE: Recursion is mandatory
def insert(lst, to_insert):
"""
parameters : lst of type list, that contains values sorted from smallest to largest;
to_insert : represents a value
returns : same list with the to_insert value positioned at the right index
in order for the list to remain sorted from smallest to largest;
"""
if len(lst) == 1:
return
if lst[0] < to_insert and to_insert < lst[1]:
lst[3] = to_insert
return [lst[0]] + [lst[3]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
else:
return [lst[0]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
print(insert([1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9], 6))
The list outputs the following :
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] #not sure where 9 got left
How do I optimize this function, using only simple functions.
python sorting recursion
New contributor
I feel like the title is a bit wordy. What I have defined here is a function that takes two parameters:
- a list that contains valued sorted from smallest to biggest
- a number to insert at the right index so that the returned list print its values from smallest to biggest
NOTE: Recursion is mandatory
def insert(lst, to_insert):
"""
parameters : lst of type list, that contains values sorted from smallest to largest;
to_insert : represents a value
returns : same list with the to_insert value positioned at the right index
in order for the list to remain sorted from smallest to largest;
"""
if len(lst) == 1:
return
if lst[0] < to_insert and to_insert < lst[1]:
lst[3] = to_insert
return [lst[0]] + [lst[3]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
else:
return [lst[0]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
print(insert([1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9], 6))
The list outputs the following :
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] #not sure where 9 got left
How do I optimize this function, using only simple functions.
python sorting recursion
python sorting recursion
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
200_success
127k15148410
127k15148410
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
Mister Tusk
454
454
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
if len(lst) == 1:
return
This is incorrect, as it crops one number off and produces the 9 bug you have seen. Instead, you can do:
if not lst:
return [to_insert]
Similarly, the remaining of the function is overly complicated, and can return false results in some edge cases. You would have problems calling for lst[3]
if the list is not of four elements or more, and I believe it's incorrect too when inserting 1
in [2, 3, 4, 5]
.
if lst[0] > to_insert:
return [to_insert] + lst
return [lst[0]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
Would be more correct, although not optimal.
New contributor
What does the linereturn [to_insert] + lst
do?
– Mister Tusk
2 days ago
@MisterTusk It returns the list prepended with the element to_insert. For example if to_insert is 1 and lst is [2, 3, 4], it will return [1, 2, 3, 4].
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Recursion is usually a poor choice in Python. Non-tail recursion is usually a poor choice in any language (and this is non-tail because we apply +
to the result before returning it).
It's better to use the standard bisect
module to find (once) the correct index at which to insert. This module provides the bisect()
function to locate the correct index, and also the insort()
function that calls bisect
and then inserts, exactly as we want:
insert = bisect.insort
This will insert in place, rather than creating a new list, so not exactly equivalent to the existing code.
As you say "using only simple functions", let's suppose you can't use the Standard Library (that's a bad assumption in general - Python philosophy is that it "includes batteries" to make your code simpler). Then we can use a similar method to write our own non-recursive version.
def insert(lst, to_insert):
"""
parameters : lst: sorted list (smallest to largest)
to_insert: value to add
returns : copy of lst with the to_insert value added in sorted position
"""
# binary search
left = 0
right = len(lst)
while left != right:
mid = left + (right-left) // 2
if lst[mid] == to_insert:
left = right = mid
elif lst[mid] < to_insert:
left = mid + 1
else:
right = mid
# now copy the list, inserting new element
return lst[:left] + [to_insert] + lst[left:]
Since the question states (without justification) that "recursion is mandatory", I recommend making the search recursive, but performing the insertion just once:
#! untested
def insert(lst, to_insert, left=0, right=None):
if right is None:
right = len(lst)
if left == right:
return lst[:left] + [to_insert] + lst[left:]
else:
mid = left + (right-left) // 2
if lst[mid] == to_insert:
left = right = mid
elif lst[mid] < to_insert:
left = mid + 1
else:
right = mid
# move left or right, then
return insert(lst, to_insert, left, right)
This is now tail-recursive, at least, and only reallocates the list elements once, rather than every level of recursion.
I suppose this is a programming exercise.
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
1
Could be - that said, looking at how they work might be instructive.
– Toby Speight
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
if len(lst) == 1:
return
This is incorrect, as it crops one number off and produces the 9 bug you have seen. Instead, you can do:
if not lst:
return [to_insert]
Similarly, the remaining of the function is overly complicated, and can return false results in some edge cases. You would have problems calling for lst[3]
if the list is not of four elements or more, and I believe it's incorrect too when inserting 1
in [2, 3, 4, 5]
.
if lst[0] > to_insert:
return [to_insert] + lst
return [lst[0]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
Would be more correct, although not optimal.
New contributor
What does the linereturn [to_insert] + lst
do?
– Mister Tusk
2 days ago
@MisterTusk It returns the list prepended with the element to_insert. For example if to_insert is 1 and lst is [2, 3, 4], it will return [1, 2, 3, 4].
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
if len(lst) == 1:
return
This is incorrect, as it crops one number off and produces the 9 bug you have seen. Instead, you can do:
if not lst:
return [to_insert]
Similarly, the remaining of the function is overly complicated, and can return false results in some edge cases. You would have problems calling for lst[3]
if the list is not of four elements or more, and I believe it's incorrect too when inserting 1
in [2, 3, 4, 5]
.
if lst[0] > to_insert:
return [to_insert] + lst
return [lst[0]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
Would be more correct, although not optimal.
New contributor
What does the linereturn [to_insert] + lst
do?
– Mister Tusk
2 days ago
@MisterTusk It returns the list prepended with the element to_insert. For example if to_insert is 1 and lst is [2, 3, 4], it will return [1, 2, 3, 4].
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
if len(lst) == 1:
return
This is incorrect, as it crops one number off and produces the 9 bug you have seen. Instead, you can do:
if not lst:
return [to_insert]
Similarly, the remaining of the function is overly complicated, and can return false results in some edge cases. You would have problems calling for lst[3]
if the list is not of four elements or more, and I believe it's incorrect too when inserting 1
in [2, 3, 4, 5]
.
if lst[0] > to_insert:
return [to_insert] + lst
return [lst[0]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
Would be more correct, although not optimal.
New contributor
if len(lst) == 1:
return
This is incorrect, as it crops one number off and produces the 9 bug you have seen. Instead, you can do:
if not lst:
return [to_insert]
Similarly, the remaining of the function is overly complicated, and can return false results in some edge cases. You would have problems calling for lst[3]
if the list is not of four elements or more, and I believe it's incorrect too when inserting 1
in [2, 3, 4, 5]
.
if lst[0] > to_insert:
return [to_insert] + lst
return [lst[0]] + insert(lst[1:], to_insert)
Would be more correct, although not optimal.
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
Arthur Havlicek
2213
2213
New contributor
New contributor
What does the linereturn [to_insert] + lst
do?
– Mister Tusk
2 days ago
@MisterTusk It returns the list prepended with the element to_insert. For example if to_insert is 1 and lst is [2, 3, 4], it will return [1, 2, 3, 4].
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
add a comment |
What does the linereturn [to_insert] + lst
do?
– Mister Tusk
2 days ago
@MisterTusk It returns the list prepended with the element to_insert. For example if to_insert is 1 and lst is [2, 3, 4], it will return [1, 2, 3, 4].
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
What does the line
return [to_insert] + lst
do?– Mister Tusk
2 days ago
What does the line
return [to_insert] + lst
do?– Mister Tusk
2 days ago
@MisterTusk It returns the list prepended with the element to_insert. For example if to_insert is 1 and lst is [2, 3, 4], it will return [1, 2, 3, 4].
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
@MisterTusk It returns the list prepended with the element to_insert. For example if to_insert is 1 and lst is [2, 3, 4], it will return [1, 2, 3, 4].
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Recursion is usually a poor choice in Python. Non-tail recursion is usually a poor choice in any language (and this is non-tail because we apply +
to the result before returning it).
It's better to use the standard bisect
module to find (once) the correct index at which to insert. This module provides the bisect()
function to locate the correct index, and also the insort()
function that calls bisect
and then inserts, exactly as we want:
insert = bisect.insort
This will insert in place, rather than creating a new list, so not exactly equivalent to the existing code.
As you say "using only simple functions", let's suppose you can't use the Standard Library (that's a bad assumption in general - Python philosophy is that it "includes batteries" to make your code simpler). Then we can use a similar method to write our own non-recursive version.
def insert(lst, to_insert):
"""
parameters : lst: sorted list (smallest to largest)
to_insert: value to add
returns : copy of lst with the to_insert value added in sorted position
"""
# binary search
left = 0
right = len(lst)
while left != right:
mid = left + (right-left) // 2
if lst[mid] == to_insert:
left = right = mid
elif lst[mid] < to_insert:
left = mid + 1
else:
right = mid
# now copy the list, inserting new element
return lst[:left] + [to_insert] + lst[left:]
Since the question states (without justification) that "recursion is mandatory", I recommend making the search recursive, but performing the insertion just once:
#! untested
def insert(lst, to_insert, left=0, right=None):
if right is None:
right = len(lst)
if left == right:
return lst[:left] + [to_insert] + lst[left:]
else:
mid = left + (right-left) // 2
if lst[mid] == to_insert:
left = right = mid
elif lst[mid] < to_insert:
left = mid + 1
else:
right = mid
# move left or right, then
return insert(lst, to_insert, left, right)
This is now tail-recursive, at least, and only reallocates the list elements once, rather than every level of recursion.
I suppose this is a programming exercise.
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
1
Could be - that said, looking at how they work might be instructive.
– Toby Speight
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Recursion is usually a poor choice in Python. Non-tail recursion is usually a poor choice in any language (and this is non-tail because we apply +
to the result before returning it).
It's better to use the standard bisect
module to find (once) the correct index at which to insert. This module provides the bisect()
function to locate the correct index, and also the insort()
function that calls bisect
and then inserts, exactly as we want:
insert = bisect.insort
This will insert in place, rather than creating a new list, so not exactly equivalent to the existing code.
As you say "using only simple functions", let's suppose you can't use the Standard Library (that's a bad assumption in general - Python philosophy is that it "includes batteries" to make your code simpler). Then we can use a similar method to write our own non-recursive version.
def insert(lst, to_insert):
"""
parameters : lst: sorted list (smallest to largest)
to_insert: value to add
returns : copy of lst with the to_insert value added in sorted position
"""
# binary search
left = 0
right = len(lst)
while left != right:
mid = left + (right-left) // 2
if lst[mid] == to_insert:
left = right = mid
elif lst[mid] < to_insert:
left = mid + 1
else:
right = mid
# now copy the list, inserting new element
return lst[:left] + [to_insert] + lst[left:]
Since the question states (without justification) that "recursion is mandatory", I recommend making the search recursive, but performing the insertion just once:
#! untested
def insert(lst, to_insert, left=0, right=None):
if right is None:
right = len(lst)
if left == right:
return lst[:left] + [to_insert] + lst[left:]
else:
mid = left + (right-left) // 2
if lst[mid] == to_insert:
left = right = mid
elif lst[mid] < to_insert:
left = mid + 1
else:
right = mid
# move left or right, then
return insert(lst, to_insert, left, right)
This is now tail-recursive, at least, and only reallocates the list elements once, rather than every level of recursion.
I suppose this is a programming exercise.
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
1
Could be - that said, looking at how they work might be instructive.
– Toby Speight
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Recursion is usually a poor choice in Python. Non-tail recursion is usually a poor choice in any language (and this is non-tail because we apply +
to the result before returning it).
It's better to use the standard bisect
module to find (once) the correct index at which to insert. This module provides the bisect()
function to locate the correct index, and also the insort()
function that calls bisect
and then inserts, exactly as we want:
insert = bisect.insort
This will insert in place, rather than creating a new list, so not exactly equivalent to the existing code.
As you say "using only simple functions", let's suppose you can't use the Standard Library (that's a bad assumption in general - Python philosophy is that it "includes batteries" to make your code simpler). Then we can use a similar method to write our own non-recursive version.
def insert(lst, to_insert):
"""
parameters : lst: sorted list (smallest to largest)
to_insert: value to add
returns : copy of lst with the to_insert value added in sorted position
"""
# binary search
left = 0
right = len(lst)
while left != right:
mid = left + (right-left) // 2
if lst[mid] == to_insert:
left = right = mid
elif lst[mid] < to_insert:
left = mid + 1
else:
right = mid
# now copy the list, inserting new element
return lst[:left] + [to_insert] + lst[left:]
Since the question states (without justification) that "recursion is mandatory", I recommend making the search recursive, but performing the insertion just once:
#! untested
def insert(lst, to_insert, left=0, right=None):
if right is None:
right = len(lst)
if left == right:
return lst[:left] + [to_insert] + lst[left:]
else:
mid = left + (right-left) // 2
if lst[mid] == to_insert:
left = right = mid
elif lst[mid] < to_insert:
left = mid + 1
else:
right = mid
# move left or right, then
return insert(lst, to_insert, left, right)
This is now tail-recursive, at least, and only reallocates the list elements once, rather than every level of recursion.
Recursion is usually a poor choice in Python. Non-tail recursion is usually a poor choice in any language (and this is non-tail because we apply +
to the result before returning it).
It's better to use the standard bisect
module to find (once) the correct index at which to insert. This module provides the bisect()
function to locate the correct index, and also the insort()
function that calls bisect
and then inserts, exactly as we want:
insert = bisect.insort
This will insert in place, rather than creating a new list, so not exactly equivalent to the existing code.
As you say "using only simple functions", let's suppose you can't use the Standard Library (that's a bad assumption in general - Python philosophy is that it "includes batteries" to make your code simpler). Then we can use a similar method to write our own non-recursive version.
def insert(lst, to_insert):
"""
parameters : lst: sorted list (smallest to largest)
to_insert: value to add
returns : copy of lst with the to_insert value added in sorted position
"""
# binary search
left = 0
right = len(lst)
while left != right:
mid = left + (right-left) // 2
if lst[mid] == to_insert:
left = right = mid
elif lst[mid] < to_insert:
left = mid + 1
else:
right = mid
# now copy the list, inserting new element
return lst[:left] + [to_insert] + lst[left:]
Since the question states (without justification) that "recursion is mandatory", I recommend making the search recursive, but performing the insertion just once:
#! untested
def insert(lst, to_insert, left=0, right=None):
if right is None:
right = len(lst)
if left == right:
return lst[:left] + [to_insert] + lst[left:]
else:
mid = left + (right-left) // 2
if lst[mid] == to_insert:
left = right = mid
elif lst[mid] < to_insert:
left = mid + 1
else:
right = mid
# move left or right, then
return insert(lst, to_insert, left, right)
This is now tail-recursive, at least, and only reallocates the list elements once, rather than every level of recursion.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Toby Speight
21.8k536107
21.8k536107
I suppose this is a programming exercise.
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
1
Could be - that said, looking at how they work might be instructive.
– Toby Speight
2 days ago
add a comment |
I suppose this is a programming exercise.
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
1
Could be - that said, looking at how they work might be instructive.
– Toby Speight
2 days ago
I suppose this is a programming exercise.
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
I suppose this is a programming exercise.
– Arthur Havlicek
2 days ago
1
1
Could be - that said, looking at how they work might be instructive.
– Toby Speight
2 days ago
Could be - that said, looking at how they work might be instructive.
– Toby Speight
2 days ago
add a comment |
Mister Tusk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mister Tusk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mister Tusk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mister Tusk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f207488%2finsert-a-number-in-a-sorted-list-and-return-the-list-with-the-number-at-the-corr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password