Skip to main content

Python: any() + generator expression

Here's a nice use of any() with a generator expression:
    def is_url_interesting(self, url):
return any(regex.match(url) for regex in self.interesting_url_regexes)
It's fast because any() shortcircuits the same way "or" does. It's way shorter than the comparable "for" loop. Last of all, I think it's very readable, at least if you're used to reading list comprehensions.


Anonymous said…
And what does then self.interesting_url_regexes include? I'm pretty new to python, I would go for this one like:

any(re.match(regex, url) for regex in self.interesting_url_regexes)
Anonymous said…
self.interesting_url_regexes would include compiled regex objects.

regex = re.compile(regex_string)

since you would probably want to use the function more than once, it would make sense to pre-compile the regex and save time.
Unknown said…
Save time when? They get compiled in any case the first time they are used, and (C)Python caches previously used regexes, so there is actually no advantage to explicitly compiling them except that it arguably makes for better readability in this case.
jjinux said…
I always thought that cPython cached compiled regexes too. However, at some point, I was reading a Python book that showed the time difference. Now I'm just confused.
Dave Kirby said…
If you read the source to the re module, you can see the code that does the caching. It caches up to 100 regex, then on the 101st regex it blows the cache away and starts again with an empty cache.

If you have >100 regex then it is definitely worth pre-compiling them. If you have less then you still save some time by precompiling since you do not need to do the cache lookup on each match.

The source for 2.5.2 is at

The relevant code is in the _compile function.
jjinux said…
Awesome comment, Dave. Thanks for finally clearing it up ;)
Justin A said…
Even faster would be to '|'.join the regexes together and match on that one.
jjinux said…
> Even faster would be to '|'.join the regexes together and match on that one.

I know that that's true for certain regular expression engines, but are you sure it's true for Python's?
Bram said…
randomly bumped into your post... imho even nicer would be to use map instead of the for-loop:

return any(map(regex.match, self.interesting_url_regexes))

- bram
jjinux said…
+1 for map :)

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p