Python if-else code style for reduced code for rounding floatsIs floating point math broken?How do I parse a...

Is '大勢の人' redundant?

Can the Supreme Court overturn an impeachment?

Engineer refusing to file/disclose patents

Why do we read the Megillah by night and by day?

Why did the EU agree to delay the Brexit deadline?

Create all possible words using a set or letters

Journal losing indexing services

Why does the Sun have different day lengths, but not the gas giants?

Biological Blimps: Propulsion

Does a 'pending' US visa application constitute a denial?

Is XSS in canonical link possible?

Proving a function is onto where f(x)=|x|.

Is Asuka Langley-Soryu disgusted by Shinji?

Delete database accidentally by a bash, rescue please

Longest common substring in linear time

Is a model fitted to data or is data fitted to a model?

How is flyblackbird.com operating under Part 91K?

GraphicsGrid with a Label for each Column and Row

How do I nest cases?

Diode in opposite direction?

Character escape sequences for ">"

How to set Output path correctly for a Single Image render?

Folder comparison

How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the character



Python if-else code style for reduced code for rounding floats


Is floating point math broken?How do I parse a string to a float or int in Python?Printing increments of 0.1 in c#How can I force division to be floating point? Division keeps rounding down to 0?Double increments in JavaPut integers from stdin in listSelecting lines of a file specified by a list of stringsPerfect ROC curve but imperfect prediction accuracyFor loop break doesn't work PythonHow to classify observations based on their covariates in dataframe and numpy?Parse dataframe with specific column and write to sheets in one excel file













21















Is there any shorter, more legible code style to solve this problem?
I am trying to classify some float values into interregional folders.



def classify(value):   
if value < -0.85 and value >= -0.95:
ts_folder = r'-0.9'
elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:
ts_folder = r'-0.8'
elif value < -0.65 and value >= -0.75:
ts_folder = r'-0.7'
elif value < -0.55 and value >= -0.65:
ts_folder = r'-0.6'
elif value < -0.45 and value >= -0.55:
ts_folder = r'-0.5'
elif value < -0.35 and value >= -0.45:
ts_folder = r'-0.4'
elif value < -0.25 and value >= -0.35:
ts_folder = r'-0.3'
elif value < -0.15 and value >= -0.25:
ts_folder = r'-0.2'
elif value < -0.05 and value >= -0.15:
ts_folder = r'-0.1'
elif value < 0.05 and value >= -0.05:
ts_folder = r'.0'
elif value < 0.15 and value >= 0.05:
ts_folder = r'.1'
elif value < 0.25 and value >= 0.15:
ts_folder = r'.2'
elif value < 0.35 and value >= 0.25:
ts_folder = r'.3'
elif value < 0.45 and value >= 0.35:
ts_folder = r'.4'
elif value < 0.55 and value >= 0.45:
ts_folder = r'.5'
elif value < 0.65 and value >= 0.55:
ts_folder = r'.6'
elif value < 0.75 and value >= 0.65:
ts_folder = r'.7'
elif value < 0.85 and value >= 0.75:
ts_folder = r'.8'
elif value < 0.95 and value >= 0.85:
ts_folder = r'.9'

return ts_folder









share|improve this question

























  • That's an example. In my experiment, diffence isn't always 0.5. round() is a good way in this case but not always work for me

    – Kuang 鄺世銘
    Mar 15 at 11:03











  • I think this is a case by case though. Think of whenever the pattern is not linear by example.

    – Olivier Melançon
    Mar 15 at 11:17






  • 8





    At the very least, use chained comparisons: -0.95 <= value < -0.85 instead of `value < -0.85 and value >= -0.95

    – chepner
    Mar 15 at 12:04











  • @Kuang鄺世銘 You might want to check out Python's Philosophy and Sentdex's Python3 Playlist.

    – LogicalBranch
    Mar 15 at 13:48








  • 7





    It's a great way to hide bugs! ts_folder is undefined for values larger than 0.95 or smaller than -0.85. Also, the result for -0.45 and -0.35 differ by 0.2.

    – Eric Duminil
    Mar 15 at 17:34
















21















Is there any shorter, more legible code style to solve this problem?
I am trying to classify some float values into interregional folders.



def classify(value):   
if value < -0.85 and value >= -0.95:
ts_folder = r'-0.9'
elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:
ts_folder = r'-0.8'
elif value < -0.65 and value >= -0.75:
ts_folder = r'-0.7'
elif value < -0.55 and value >= -0.65:
ts_folder = r'-0.6'
elif value < -0.45 and value >= -0.55:
ts_folder = r'-0.5'
elif value < -0.35 and value >= -0.45:
ts_folder = r'-0.4'
elif value < -0.25 and value >= -0.35:
ts_folder = r'-0.3'
elif value < -0.15 and value >= -0.25:
ts_folder = r'-0.2'
elif value < -0.05 and value >= -0.15:
ts_folder = r'-0.1'
elif value < 0.05 and value >= -0.05:
ts_folder = r'.0'
elif value < 0.15 and value >= 0.05:
ts_folder = r'.1'
elif value < 0.25 and value >= 0.15:
ts_folder = r'.2'
elif value < 0.35 and value >= 0.25:
ts_folder = r'.3'
elif value < 0.45 and value >= 0.35:
ts_folder = r'.4'
elif value < 0.55 and value >= 0.45:
ts_folder = r'.5'
elif value < 0.65 and value >= 0.55:
ts_folder = r'.6'
elif value < 0.75 and value >= 0.65:
ts_folder = r'.7'
elif value < 0.85 and value >= 0.75:
ts_folder = r'.8'
elif value < 0.95 and value >= 0.85:
ts_folder = r'.9'

return ts_folder









share|improve this question

























  • That's an example. In my experiment, diffence isn't always 0.5. round() is a good way in this case but not always work for me

    – Kuang 鄺世銘
    Mar 15 at 11:03











  • I think this is a case by case though. Think of whenever the pattern is not linear by example.

    – Olivier Melançon
    Mar 15 at 11:17






  • 8





    At the very least, use chained comparisons: -0.95 <= value < -0.85 instead of `value < -0.85 and value >= -0.95

    – chepner
    Mar 15 at 12:04











  • @Kuang鄺世銘 You might want to check out Python's Philosophy and Sentdex's Python3 Playlist.

    – LogicalBranch
    Mar 15 at 13:48








  • 7





    It's a great way to hide bugs! ts_folder is undefined for values larger than 0.95 or smaller than -0.85. Also, the result for -0.45 and -0.35 differ by 0.2.

    – Eric Duminil
    Mar 15 at 17:34














21












21








21


4






Is there any shorter, more legible code style to solve this problem?
I am trying to classify some float values into interregional folders.



def classify(value):   
if value < -0.85 and value >= -0.95:
ts_folder = r'-0.9'
elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:
ts_folder = r'-0.8'
elif value < -0.65 and value >= -0.75:
ts_folder = r'-0.7'
elif value < -0.55 and value >= -0.65:
ts_folder = r'-0.6'
elif value < -0.45 and value >= -0.55:
ts_folder = r'-0.5'
elif value < -0.35 and value >= -0.45:
ts_folder = r'-0.4'
elif value < -0.25 and value >= -0.35:
ts_folder = r'-0.3'
elif value < -0.15 and value >= -0.25:
ts_folder = r'-0.2'
elif value < -0.05 and value >= -0.15:
ts_folder = r'-0.1'
elif value < 0.05 and value >= -0.05:
ts_folder = r'.0'
elif value < 0.15 and value >= 0.05:
ts_folder = r'.1'
elif value < 0.25 and value >= 0.15:
ts_folder = r'.2'
elif value < 0.35 and value >= 0.25:
ts_folder = r'.3'
elif value < 0.45 and value >= 0.35:
ts_folder = r'.4'
elif value < 0.55 and value >= 0.45:
ts_folder = r'.5'
elif value < 0.65 and value >= 0.55:
ts_folder = r'.6'
elif value < 0.75 and value >= 0.65:
ts_folder = r'.7'
elif value < 0.85 and value >= 0.75:
ts_folder = r'.8'
elif value < 0.95 and value >= 0.85:
ts_folder = r'.9'

return ts_folder









share|improve this question
















Is there any shorter, more legible code style to solve this problem?
I am trying to classify some float values into interregional folders.



def classify(value):   
if value < -0.85 and value >= -0.95:
ts_folder = r'-0.9'
elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:
ts_folder = r'-0.8'
elif value < -0.65 and value >= -0.75:
ts_folder = r'-0.7'
elif value < -0.55 and value >= -0.65:
ts_folder = r'-0.6'
elif value < -0.45 and value >= -0.55:
ts_folder = r'-0.5'
elif value < -0.35 and value >= -0.45:
ts_folder = r'-0.4'
elif value < -0.25 and value >= -0.35:
ts_folder = r'-0.3'
elif value < -0.15 and value >= -0.25:
ts_folder = r'-0.2'
elif value < -0.05 and value >= -0.15:
ts_folder = r'-0.1'
elif value < 0.05 and value >= -0.05:
ts_folder = r'.0'
elif value < 0.15 and value >= 0.05:
ts_folder = r'.1'
elif value < 0.25 and value >= 0.15:
ts_folder = r'.2'
elif value < 0.35 and value >= 0.25:
ts_folder = r'.3'
elif value < 0.45 and value >= 0.35:
ts_folder = r'.4'
elif value < 0.55 and value >= 0.45:
ts_folder = r'.5'
elif value < 0.65 and value >= 0.55:
ts_folder = r'.6'
elif value < 0.75 and value >= 0.65:
ts_folder = r'.7'
elif value < 0.85 and value >= 0.75:
ts_folder = r'.8'
elif value < 0.95 and value >= 0.85:
ts_folder = r'.9'

return ts_folder






python floating-point rounding number-formatting






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 15 at 23:05









smci

15.4k678109




15.4k678109










asked Mar 15 at 10:44









Kuang 鄺世銘Kuang 鄺世銘

11516




11516













  • That's an example. In my experiment, diffence isn't always 0.5. round() is a good way in this case but not always work for me

    – Kuang 鄺世銘
    Mar 15 at 11:03











  • I think this is a case by case though. Think of whenever the pattern is not linear by example.

    – Olivier Melançon
    Mar 15 at 11:17






  • 8





    At the very least, use chained comparisons: -0.95 <= value < -0.85 instead of `value < -0.85 and value >= -0.95

    – chepner
    Mar 15 at 12:04











  • @Kuang鄺世銘 You might want to check out Python's Philosophy and Sentdex's Python3 Playlist.

    – LogicalBranch
    Mar 15 at 13:48








  • 7





    It's a great way to hide bugs! ts_folder is undefined for values larger than 0.95 or smaller than -0.85. Also, the result for -0.45 and -0.35 differ by 0.2.

    – Eric Duminil
    Mar 15 at 17:34



















  • That's an example. In my experiment, diffence isn't always 0.5. round() is a good way in this case but not always work for me

    – Kuang 鄺世銘
    Mar 15 at 11:03











  • I think this is a case by case though. Think of whenever the pattern is not linear by example.

    – Olivier Melançon
    Mar 15 at 11:17






  • 8





    At the very least, use chained comparisons: -0.95 <= value < -0.85 instead of `value < -0.85 and value >= -0.95

    – chepner
    Mar 15 at 12:04











  • @Kuang鄺世銘 You might want to check out Python's Philosophy and Sentdex's Python3 Playlist.

    – LogicalBranch
    Mar 15 at 13:48








  • 7





    It's a great way to hide bugs! ts_folder is undefined for values larger than 0.95 or smaller than -0.85. Also, the result for -0.45 and -0.35 differ by 0.2.

    – Eric Duminil
    Mar 15 at 17:34

















That's an example. In my experiment, diffence isn't always 0.5. round() is a good way in this case but not always work for me

– Kuang 鄺世銘
Mar 15 at 11:03





That's an example. In my experiment, diffence isn't always 0.5. round() is a good way in this case but not always work for me

– Kuang 鄺世銘
Mar 15 at 11:03













I think this is a case by case though. Think of whenever the pattern is not linear by example.

– Olivier Melançon
Mar 15 at 11:17





I think this is a case by case though. Think of whenever the pattern is not linear by example.

– Olivier Melançon
Mar 15 at 11:17




8




8





At the very least, use chained comparisons: -0.95 <= value < -0.85 instead of `value < -0.85 and value >= -0.95

– chepner
Mar 15 at 12:04





At the very least, use chained comparisons: -0.95 <= value < -0.85 instead of `value < -0.85 and value >= -0.95

– chepner
Mar 15 at 12:04













@Kuang鄺世銘 You might want to check out Python's Philosophy and Sentdex's Python3 Playlist.

– LogicalBranch
Mar 15 at 13:48







@Kuang鄺世銘 You might want to check out Python's Philosophy and Sentdex's Python3 Playlist.

– LogicalBranch
Mar 15 at 13:48






7




7





It's a great way to hide bugs! ts_folder is undefined for values larger than 0.95 or smaller than -0.85. Also, the result for -0.45 and -0.35 differ by 0.2.

– Eric Duminil
Mar 15 at 17:34





It's a great way to hide bugs! ts_folder is undefined for values larger than 0.95 or smaller than -0.85. Also, the result for -0.45 and -0.35 differ by 0.2.

– Eric Duminil
Mar 15 at 17:34












12 Answers
12






active

oldest

votes


















37














Specific solution



There is no real general solution, but in your case you can use the following expression.



ts_folder = r'{:.1f}'.format(round(value, 1))


General solution



If you actually need some kind of generalization, notice that any non-linear pattern will cause trouble. Although, there is a way to shorten the code.



def classify(key, intervals):
for lo, hi, value in intervals:
if lo <= key < hi:
return value
else:
... # return a default value or None

# A list of tuples (lo, hi, key) which associates any value in the lo to hi interval to key
intervals = [
(value / 10 - 0.05, value / 10 + 0.05, r'{:.1f}'.format(value / 10))
for value in range(-9, 10)
]

value = -0.73

ts_folder = classify(value, intervals) # r'-0.7'


Notice that the above is still not totally safe from some float rounding error. You can add precision by manually typing down the intervals list instead of using a comprehension.



Continuous intervals



If the intervals in your data are continuous, that is there is no gap between them, as in your example, then we can use some optimizations. Namely, we can store only the higher bound of each interval in the list. Then by keeping those sorted, we can use bisect for efficient lookup.



import bisect

def value_from_hi(hi):
return r'{:.1f}'.format(hi - 0.05)

def classify(key, boundaries):
i = bisect.bisect_right(boundaries, key)
if i < len(boundaries):
return value_from_hi(boundaries[i])
else:
... # return some default value

# Sorted upper bounds
boundaries = [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05,
0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]

ts_folder = classify(-0.32, boundaries) # r'-0.3'


Important note: the choice of using the higher bounds and bisect_right is due to the fact the higher bounds are excluded in your example. If the lower bounds were excluded, then we would have to use those with bisect_left.



Also note that you may want to treat numbers out of the range [-0.95, 0.95[ in some special way and note just leave those to bisect.






share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    Note that the OP had if lo <=key < hi.

    – Martin Bonner
    Mar 15 at 15:26






  • 1





    If the intervals are supposed to be contiguous, you can require that they are supplied sorted (low to high), and then just have the intervals be (hi, value), and then the loop becomes for hi, value in intervals: if key < hi: return value

    – Martin Bonner
    Mar 15 at 15:27






  • 1





    Floats comparison are tricky. On my computer, your specific solution returns different values for [-0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.85] compared to OP's code.

    – Eric Duminil
    Mar 15 at 17:32






  • 3





    Assuming the intervals partition a range, binary search with the bisect module would be a good option.

    – user2357112
    Mar 15 at 19:54



















22














The bisect module will do exactly the right lookup for finding the right bin from a list of breakpoints. In fact, the example in the documentation is exactly a case like this:




The bisect() function is generally useful for categorizing numeric data. This example uses bisect() to look up a letter grade for an exam total (say) based on a set of ordered numeric breakpoints: 85 and up is an ‘A’, 75..84 is a ‘B’, etc.




>>> grades = "FEDCBA"
>>> breakpoints = [30, 44, 66, 75, 85]
>>> from bisect import bisect
>>> def grade(total):
... return grades[bisect(breakpoints, total)]
>>> grade(66)
'C'
>>> map(grade, [33, 99, 77, 44, 12, 88])
['E', 'A', 'B', 'D', 'F', 'A']


Instead of a string for the value lookups, you'd want a list of strings for the exact folder names you need for each range of values. For example:



breakpoints = [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65]
folders = [r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7']
foldername = folders[bisect(breakpoints, -0.72)]


If you can automate even part of this table generation (using round(), or something similar), of course you should.






share|improve this answer































    13














    One of the first rules with a block of code like this, is to always make the comparisons be in the same direction. So instead of



        elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:


    write



        elif -0.85 <= value and value < -0.75:


    At this point you can observe that python allows chaining of comparisons, so you can write:



        elif -0.85 <= value < -0.75:


    Which is an improvement itself. Alternatively, you can observe this is an ordered list of comparisons, so if you add in an initial comparisons, you can just write



        if value < -0.95:        ts_folder = ''
    elif value < -0.85: ts_folder = r'-0.9'
    elif value < -0.75: ts_folder = r'-0.8'
    elif value < -0.65: ts_folder = r'-0.7'
    elif value < -0.55: ts_folder = r'-0.6'
    elif value < -0.45: ts_folder = r'-0.5'
    elif value < -0.35: ts_folder = r'-0.4'
    elif value < -0.25: ts_folder = r'-0.3'
    elif value < -0.15: ts_folder = r'-0.2'
    elif value < -0.05: ts_folder = r'-0.1'
    elif value < 0.05: ts_folder = r'.0'
    elif value < 0.15: ts_folder = r'.1'
    elif value < 0.25: ts_folder = r'.2'
    elif value < 0.35: ts_folder = r'.3'
    elif value < 0.45: ts_folder = r'.4'
    elif value < 0.55: ts_folder = r'.5'
    elif value < 0.65: ts_folder = r'.6'
    elif value < 0.75: ts_folder = r'.7'
    elif value < 0.85: ts_folder = r'.8'
    elif value < 0.95: ts_folder = r'.9'
    else: ts_folder = ''


    That's still quite long, but a) it's a lot more readable; b) it has explicit code to handle value < -0.95 or 0.95 <= value






    share|improve this answer

































      9














      All answers revolve around rounding, which seems to be fine in this case, but just for the sake of argument I'd like to also point out a cool python use of dictionaries which is often described as an alternative to other languages switch(es) and that in turn allow for arbitrary values.



      ranges = {
      (-0.85, -0.95): r'-0.9',
      (-0.75, -0.85): r'-0.8',
      (-0.65, -0.75): r'-0.7',
      (-0.55, -0.65): r'-0.6'
      ...
      }

      def classify (value):
      for (ceiling, floor), rounded_value in ranges.items():
      if floor <= value < ceiling:
      return rounded_value


      Output:



      >>> classify(-0.78)
      -0.8





      share|improve this answer





















      • 20





        In this case you're NOT using the "dict dispatch" trick - you're doing a sequential scan, so you'd get the exact same result with a list of (start, stop, val) tuples (but with the added overhead of creating a dict and doing a useless __getitem__ access).

        – bruno desthuilliers
        Mar 15 at 12:39






      • 2





        @chepner By editing this code you have made it not work; it indexes into ranges with current_value which is not defined (because you deleted it).

        – Arthur Tacca
        Mar 15 at 14:36











      • @brunodesthuilliers: I would argue the dict is not useless; the code is much more readable, and easy to modify. Sure, it's not efficient (O(n)), but n is small and it may be the right choice in some cases.

        – danuker
        Mar 17 at 10:19











      • @brunodesthuilliers I never said anything about "dict as dispatch table"; I think you confuse me with the author of this answer. I just stumbled across this question and answer and found the answer could not work, and looking into it more found the original answer did work but an editor had broken it while "improving" it. It has since been fixed. Still, if someone considers an answer substantially lacking, I think it makes more sense to post a new one than to totally rewrite the answer in an edit.

        – Arthur Tacca
        Mar 18 at 12:22











      • @ArthurTacca oops, sorry, there was some confusion indeed (actually with not only the author but also with danuker). I cannot edit my comment anymore so I'll delete and repost an edited version.

        – bruno desthuilliers
        Mar 18 at 13:09



















      8














      You can use the round() built-in :



      ts_folder = "\" + str(round(value + 1e-16, 1)) # To round values like .05 to .1, not .0
      if ts_folder == r"-0.0": ts_folder = r".0"


      More on round()






      share|improve this answer





















      • 1





        It doesn't seem to work for [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.0], compared to OP's code. I'm not sure if it's a bug or a feature.

        – Eric Duminil
        Mar 15 at 17:41













      • Still have an issue with [-0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01], as they get rounded to -0.0 instead of 0.0 as in the OP.

        – Wlerin
        Mar 17 at 6:25













      • Gosh I forgot that, thanks @Wlerin

        – Fukiyel
        Mar 17 at 6:55











      • I suspect you meant to include a *10 inside the round() call as well, but unfortunately this just changes the problem from negative zero to banker's rounding. Perhaps the simplest solution is to round the value using your original method, then check if it's equal to 0 (because -0.0 == 0.0) and if so set it to 0.

        – Wlerin
        Mar 17 at 7:46





















      4














      Actually in Python 3 .85 will be round to .8. As per the question .85 should be round to .9.



      Can you try the following:



      round2 = lambda x, y=None: round(x+1e-15, y)
      ts_folder = r'{}'.format(str(round2(value, 1)))


      Output:



      >>> round2(.85, 1)
      0.9
      >>> round2(-.85, 1)
      -0.8





      share|improve this answer
























      • As Wlerin said under my post : -.05, -.04, -.03 etc will alas be transformed to -0.0, and not .0

        – Fukiyel
        Mar 17 at 7:00



















      2














      How about turning it into a loop?



      def classify(value):
      i = -5
      while i < 95:
      if value < (i + 10) / 100.0 and value >= i / 100.0:
      return '\' + repr((i + 5) / 100.0)
      i += 10


      it's not efficient by any means, but it's equivalent to what you have, just shorter.






      share|improve this answer
























      • You need to start at ` i = -95`, though.

        – Eric Duminil
        Mar 15 at 17:38



















      2














      from decimal import Decimal

      def classify(value):
      number = Decimal(value)
      result = "%.2f" % (number)
      return Decimal(round(float(result), 2))





      share|improve this answer


























      • using Decimal is a good idea, but this definitely doesn't work as is.

        – Wlerin
        Mar 17 at 6:29



















      1














      You don't need the and value >= -.85 in elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:; if the value isn't greater than or equal to -.85, then you won't reach the elif. You can also just turn all the elifs into if by having each one return immediately.



      In this case, since you have the boundaries at regular intervals, you can just round (in the general case of regular intervals, you may have to divide and then round, for instance if the intervals are at every three units, then you would divide the number by three and round). In the general case, it's faster to store the boundaries in a tree structure, and then do a binary search for where the item goes.



      Doing a binary search explicitly would be something like this:



      def classify(value):   
      if value < -.05:
      if value < -.45:
      if value < -.65:
      if value < -.85:
      if value < -.95:
      return None
      return r'-0.9'
      if value < -.75:
      return r'-0.8'
      return r'-0.7'
      ...


      Although this code is harder to read than yours, it runs in time logarithmic rather than linear with respect to the number of boundaries.



      If the number of items is significantly larger than the number of boundaries, it would probably be faster to actually create a tree of the items, and insert the boundaries.



      You could also create a list, sort it, and then look at the index. For instance, compare (sorted([(_-9.5)/10 for _ in range(20)]+[x]).index(x)-9)/10 to your function.






      share|improve this answer































        1














        Take a look at the round() function in python. Maybe you can work it out without the if.



        With this function you can specify the number of digits you need to keep.
        For example :



        x = round(5.76543, 2)
        print(x)


        That code will print 5.77






        share|improve this answer





















        • 2





          Please try and answer with a clear example

          – AJS
          Mar 15 at 10:52



















        1














        Many of these answers suggest some kind of rounding as a solution. Unfortunately, there are three problems with using rounding for this purpose, and at the time of writing all of them fell prey to at least one.




        • Floating point representation of decimal values is inexact. For example, the float 0.85 is in fact 0.8499999999999999777955395....

        • round() uses ties-round-to-even, also known as scientific or banker's rounding, rather than the arithmetic rounding many of us learned in school. This means e.g. 0.85 rounds to 0.8 instead of 0.9, and 0.25 rounds to 0.2 instead of 0.3.

        • very small negative floats (and Decimals) round up to -0.0 rather than 0.0 as the OP's mapping requires.


        These can all be solved using the Decimal module, though not as prettily as I'd like:



        from decimal import Decimal, ROUND_HALF_UP, ROUND_HALF_DOWN

        def classify(value):
        number = Decimal('{:.2f}'.format(value))

        if number < 0:
        round_method = ROUND_HALF_DOWN
        else:
        round_method = ROUND_HALF_UP
        rounded_number = number.quantize(Decimal('0.1'), rounding=round_method)

        if rounded_number == 0.0:
        rounded_number = Decimal('0.0')
        return r'{}'.format(rounded_number)


        Both ROUND_HALF_DOWN and ROUND_HALF_UP are required as ROUND_HALF_UP actually rounds away from zero rather than towards Infinity. .quantize rounds a Decimal value to the places given by the first argument, and allows us to specify a rounding method.



        Bonus: Bisect Breakpoints using range()



        For the bisect solutions, this will generate the breakpoints used by the OP:



        from decimal import Decimal
        breakpoints = [Decimal('{}e-2'.format(e)) for e in range(-85, 96, 10)]





        share|improve this answer

































          0














          Try something like this, if you don't like loops:



          def classify(value): 
          endpts = [-0.95, -0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]
          ts_folder = [ r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7', r'-0.6', r'-0.5', r'-0.4', r'-0.3', r'-0.2', r'-0.1', r'.0', r'.1', r'.2', r'.3', r'.4', r'.5', r'.6', r'.7', r'.8', r'.9']
          idx = [value >= end for end in endpts].index(False)
          if not idx:
          raise ValueError('Value outside of range')
          return ts_folder[idx-1]


          Of course, the loop is just "hidden" in the list comprehension.
          Obviously, in this example, it would be better to generate endpts and ts_fol programmatically rather than writing them all out, but you indicated that in the real situation the endpoints and values aren't so straightforward.



          This raises a ValueError if value ≥ 0.95 (because False is not found in the list comprehension) or if value < -0.95 (because then idx is 0); the original version raises a UnboundLocalError in these cases.



          You could also save three lines and skip a few comparisons by doing this:



          def classify(value):
          endpts = [-0.95, -0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]
          ts_fol = [ None, r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7', r'-0.6', r'-0.5', r'-0.4', r'-0.3', r'-0.2', r'-0.1', r'.0', r'.1', r'.2', r'.3', r'.4', r'.5', r'.6', r'.7', r'.8', r'.9']
          return next((ts for ts, end in zip(ts_fol, endpts) if value < end), None)


          This version returns None rather than raising exceptions for any value outside the bounds.






          share|improve this answer

























            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',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            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%2f55180829%2fpython-if-else-code-style-for-reduced-code-for-rounding-floats%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            12 Answers
            12






            active

            oldest

            votes








            12 Answers
            12






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            37














            Specific solution



            There is no real general solution, but in your case you can use the following expression.



            ts_folder = r'{:.1f}'.format(round(value, 1))


            General solution



            If you actually need some kind of generalization, notice that any non-linear pattern will cause trouble. Although, there is a way to shorten the code.



            def classify(key, intervals):
            for lo, hi, value in intervals:
            if lo <= key < hi:
            return value
            else:
            ... # return a default value or None

            # A list of tuples (lo, hi, key) which associates any value in the lo to hi interval to key
            intervals = [
            (value / 10 - 0.05, value / 10 + 0.05, r'{:.1f}'.format(value / 10))
            for value in range(-9, 10)
            ]

            value = -0.73

            ts_folder = classify(value, intervals) # r'-0.7'


            Notice that the above is still not totally safe from some float rounding error. You can add precision by manually typing down the intervals list instead of using a comprehension.



            Continuous intervals



            If the intervals in your data are continuous, that is there is no gap between them, as in your example, then we can use some optimizations. Namely, we can store only the higher bound of each interval in the list. Then by keeping those sorted, we can use bisect for efficient lookup.



            import bisect

            def value_from_hi(hi):
            return r'{:.1f}'.format(hi - 0.05)

            def classify(key, boundaries):
            i = bisect.bisect_right(boundaries, key)
            if i < len(boundaries):
            return value_from_hi(boundaries[i])
            else:
            ... # return some default value

            # Sorted upper bounds
            boundaries = [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05,
            0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]

            ts_folder = classify(-0.32, boundaries) # r'-0.3'


            Important note: the choice of using the higher bounds and bisect_right is due to the fact the higher bounds are excluded in your example. If the lower bounds were excluded, then we would have to use those with bisect_left.



            Also note that you may want to treat numbers out of the range [-0.95, 0.95[ in some special way and note just leave those to bisect.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 2





              Note that the OP had if lo <=key < hi.

              – Martin Bonner
              Mar 15 at 15:26






            • 1





              If the intervals are supposed to be contiguous, you can require that they are supplied sorted (low to high), and then just have the intervals be (hi, value), and then the loop becomes for hi, value in intervals: if key < hi: return value

              – Martin Bonner
              Mar 15 at 15:27






            • 1





              Floats comparison are tricky. On my computer, your specific solution returns different values for [-0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.85] compared to OP's code.

              – Eric Duminil
              Mar 15 at 17:32






            • 3





              Assuming the intervals partition a range, binary search with the bisect module would be a good option.

              – user2357112
              Mar 15 at 19:54
















            37














            Specific solution



            There is no real general solution, but in your case you can use the following expression.



            ts_folder = r'{:.1f}'.format(round(value, 1))


            General solution



            If you actually need some kind of generalization, notice that any non-linear pattern will cause trouble. Although, there is a way to shorten the code.



            def classify(key, intervals):
            for lo, hi, value in intervals:
            if lo <= key < hi:
            return value
            else:
            ... # return a default value or None

            # A list of tuples (lo, hi, key) which associates any value in the lo to hi interval to key
            intervals = [
            (value / 10 - 0.05, value / 10 + 0.05, r'{:.1f}'.format(value / 10))
            for value in range(-9, 10)
            ]

            value = -0.73

            ts_folder = classify(value, intervals) # r'-0.7'


            Notice that the above is still not totally safe from some float rounding error. You can add precision by manually typing down the intervals list instead of using a comprehension.



            Continuous intervals



            If the intervals in your data are continuous, that is there is no gap between them, as in your example, then we can use some optimizations. Namely, we can store only the higher bound of each interval in the list. Then by keeping those sorted, we can use bisect for efficient lookup.



            import bisect

            def value_from_hi(hi):
            return r'{:.1f}'.format(hi - 0.05)

            def classify(key, boundaries):
            i = bisect.bisect_right(boundaries, key)
            if i < len(boundaries):
            return value_from_hi(boundaries[i])
            else:
            ... # return some default value

            # Sorted upper bounds
            boundaries = [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05,
            0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]

            ts_folder = classify(-0.32, boundaries) # r'-0.3'


            Important note: the choice of using the higher bounds and bisect_right is due to the fact the higher bounds are excluded in your example. If the lower bounds were excluded, then we would have to use those with bisect_left.



            Also note that you may want to treat numbers out of the range [-0.95, 0.95[ in some special way and note just leave those to bisect.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 2





              Note that the OP had if lo <=key < hi.

              – Martin Bonner
              Mar 15 at 15:26






            • 1





              If the intervals are supposed to be contiguous, you can require that they are supplied sorted (low to high), and then just have the intervals be (hi, value), and then the loop becomes for hi, value in intervals: if key < hi: return value

              – Martin Bonner
              Mar 15 at 15:27






            • 1





              Floats comparison are tricky. On my computer, your specific solution returns different values for [-0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.85] compared to OP's code.

              – Eric Duminil
              Mar 15 at 17:32






            • 3





              Assuming the intervals partition a range, binary search with the bisect module would be a good option.

              – user2357112
              Mar 15 at 19:54














            37












            37








            37







            Specific solution



            There is no real general solution, but in your case you can use the following expression.



            ts_folder = r'{:.1f}'.format(round(value, 1))


            General solution



            If you actually need some kind of generalization, notice that any non-linear pattern will cause trouble. Although, there is a way to shorten the code.



            def classify(key, intervals):
            for lo, hi, value in intervals:
            if lo <= key < hi:
            return value
            else:
            ... # return a default value or None

            # A list of tuples (lo, hi, key) which associates any value in the lo to hi interval to key
            intervals = [
            (value / 10 - 0.05, value / 10 + 0.05, r'{:.1f}'.format(value / 10))
            for value in range(-9, 10)
            ]

            value = -0.73

            ts_folder = classify(value, intervals) # r'-0.7'


            Notice that the above is still not totally safe from some float rounding error. You can add precision by manually typing down the intervals list instead of using a comprehension.



            Continuous intervals



            If the intervals in your data are continuous, that is there is no gap between them, as in your example, then we can use some optimizations. Namely, we can store only the higher bound of each interval in the list. Then by keeping those sorted, we can use bisect for efficient lookup.



            import bisect

            def value_from_hi(hi):
            return r'{:.1f}'.format(hi - 0.05)

            def classify(key, boundaries):
            i = bisect.bisect_right(boundaries, key)
            if i < len(boundaries):
            return value_from_hi(boundaries[i])
            else:
            ... # return some default value

            # Sorted upper bounds
            boundaries = [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05,
            0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]

            ts_folder = classify(-0.32, boundaries) # r'-0.3'


            Important note: the choice of using the higher bounds and bisect_right is due to the fact the higher bounds are excluded in your example. If the lower bounds were excluded, then we would have to use those with bisect_left.



            Also note that you may want to treat numbers out of the range [-0.95, 0.95[ in some special way and note just leave those to bisect.






            share|improve this answer















            Specific solution



            There is no real general solution, but in your case you can use the following expression.



            ts_folder = r'{:.1f}'.format(round(value, 1))


            General solution



            If you actually need some kind of generalization, notice that any non-linear pattern will cause trouble. Although, there is a way to shorten the code.



            def classify(key, intervals):
            for lo, hi, value in intervals:
            if lo <= key < hi:
            return value
            else:
            ... # return a default value or None

            # A list of tuples (lo, hi, key) which associates any value in the lo to hi interval to key
            intervals = [
            (value / 10 - 0.05, value / 10 + 0.05, r'{:.1f}'.format(value / 10))
            for value in range(-9, 10)
            ]

            value = -0.73

            ts_folder = classify(value, intervals) # r'-0.7'


            Notice that the above is still not totally safe from some float rounding error. You can add precision by manually typing down the intervals list instead of using a comprehension.



            Continuous intervals



            If the intervals in your data are continuous, that is there is no gap between them, as in your example, then we can use some optimizations. Namely, we can store only the higher bound of each interval in the list. Then by keeping those sorted, we can use bisect for efficient lookup.



            import bisect

            def value_from_hi(hi):
            return r'{:.1f}'.format(hi - 0.05)

            def classify(key, boundaries):
            i = bisect.bisect_right(boundaries, key)
            if i < len(boundaries):
            return value_from_hi(boundaries[i])
            else:
            ... # return some default value

            # Sorted upper bounds
            boundaries = [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05,
            0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]

            ts_folder = classify(-0.32, boundaries) # r'-0.3'


            Important note: the choice of using the higher bounds and bisect_right is due to the fact the higher bounds are excluded in your example. If the lower bounds were excluded, then we would have to use those with bisect_left.



            Also note that you may want to treat numbers out of the range [-0.95, 0.95[ in some special way and note just leave those to bisect.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Mar 17 at 0:21

























            answered Mar 15 at 10:58









            Olivier MelançonOlivier Melançon

            14.1k22142




            14.1k22142








            • 2





              Note that the OP had if lo <=key < hi.

              – Martin Bonner
              Mar 15 at 15:26






            • 1





              If the intervals are supposed to be contiguous, you can require that they are supplied sorted (low to high), and then just have the intervals be (hi, value), and then the loop becomes for hi, value in intervals: if key < hi: return value

              – Martin Bonner
              Mar 15 at 15:27






            • 1





              Floats comparison are tricky. On my computer, your specific solution returns different values for [-0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.85] compared to OP's code.

              – Eric Duminil
              Mar 15 at 17:32






            • 3





              Assuming the intervals partition a range, binary search with the bisect module would be a good option.

              – user2357112
              Mar 15 at 19:54














            • 2





              Note that the OP had if lo <=key < hi.

              – Martin Bonner
              Mar 15 at 15:26






            • 1





              If the intervals are supposed to be contiguous, you can require that they are supplied sorted (low to high), and then just have the intervals be (hi, value), and then the loop becomes for hi, value in intervals: if key < hi: return value

              – Martin Bonner
              Mar 15 at 15:27






            • 1





              Floats comparison are tricky. On my computer, your specific solution returns different values for [-0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.85] compared to OP's code.

              – Eric Duminil
              Mar 15 at 17:32






            • 3





              Assuming the intervals partition a range, binary search with the bisect module would be a good option.

              – user2357112
              Mar 15 at 19:54








            2




            2





            Note that the OP had if lo <=key < hi.

            – Martin Bonner
            Mar 15 at 15:26





            Note that the OP had if lo <=key < hi.

            – Martin Bonner
            Mar 15 at 15:26




            1




            1





            If the intervals are supposed to be contiguous, you can require that they are supplied sorted (low to high), and then just have the intervals be (hi, value), and then the loop becomes for hi, value in intervals: if key < hi: return value

            – Martin Bonner
            Mar 15 at 15:27





            If the intervals are supposed to be contiguous, you can require that they are supplied sorted (low to high), and then just have the intervals be (hi, value), and then the loop becomes for hi, value in intervals: if key < hi: return value

            – Martin Bonner
            Mar 15 at 15:27




            1




            1





            Floats comparison are tricky. On my computer, your specific solution returns different values for [-0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.85] compared to OP's code.

            – Eric Duminil
            Mar 15 at 17:32





            Floats comparison are tricky. On my computer, your specific solution returns different values for [-0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.85] compared to OP's code.

            – Eric Duminil
            Mar 15 at 17:32




            3




            3





            Assuming the intervals partition a range, binary search with the bisect module would be a good option.

            – user2357112
            Mar 15 at 19:54





            Assuming the intervals partition a range, binary search with the bisect module would be a good option.

            – user2357112
            Mar 15 at 19:54













            22














            The bisect module will do exactly the right lookup for finding the right bin from a list of breakpoints. In fact, the example in the documentation is exactly a case like this:




            The bisect() function is generally useful for categorizing numeric data. This example uses bisect() to look up a letter grade for an exam total (say) based on a set of ordered numeric breakpoints: 85 and up is an ‘A’, 75..84 is a ‘B’, etc.




            >>> grades = "FEDCBA"
            >>> breakpoints = [30, 44, 66, 75, 85]
            >>> from bisect import bisect
            >>> def grade(total):
            ... return grades[bisect(breakpoints, total)]
            >>> grade(66)
            'C'
            >>> map(grade, [33, 99, 77, 44, 12, 88])
            ['E', 'A', 'B', 'D', 'F', 'A']


            Instead of a string for the value lookups, you'd want a list of strings for the exact folder names you need for each range of values. For example:



            breakpoints = [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65]
            folders = [r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7']
            foldername = folders[bisect(breakpoints, -0.72)]


            If you can automate even part of this table generation (using round(), or something similar), of course you should.






            share|improve this answer




























              22














              The bisect module will do exactly the right lookup for finding the right bin from a list of breakpoints. In fact, the example in the documentation is exactly a case like this:




              The bisect() function is generally useful for categorizing numeric data. This example uses bisect() to look up a letter grade for an exam total (say) based on a set of ordered numeric breakpoints: 85 and up is an ‘A’, 75..84 is a ‘B’, etc.




              >>> grades = "FEDCBA"
              >>> breakpoints = [30, 44, 66, 75, 85]
              >>> from bisect import bisect
              >>> def grade(total):
              ... return grades[bisect(breakpoints, total)]
              >>> grade(66)
              'C'
              >>> map(grade, [33, 99, 77, 44, 12, 88])
              ['E', 'A', 'B', 'D', 'F', 'A']


              Instead of a string for the value lookups, you'd want a list of strings for the exact folder names you need for each range of values. For example:



              breakpoints = [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65]
              folders = [r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7']
              foldername = folders[bisect(breakpoints, -0.72)]


              If you can automate even part of this table generation (using round(), or something similar), of course you should.






              share|improve this answer


























                22












                22








                22







                The bisect module will do exactly the right lookup for finding the right bin from a list of breakpoints. In fact, the example in the documentation is exactly a case like this:




                The bisect() function is generally useful for categorizing numeric data. This example uses bisect() to look up a letter grade for an exam total (say) based on a set of ordered numeric breakpoints: 85 and up is an ‘A’, 75..84 is a ‘B’, etc.




                >>> grades = "FEDCBA"
                >>> breakpoints = [30, 44, 66, 75, 85]
                >>> from bisect import bisect
                >>> def grade(total):
                ... return grades[bisect(breakpoints, total)]
                >>> grade(66)
                'C'
                >>> map(grade, [33, 99, 77, 44, 12, 88])
                ['E', 'A', 'B', 'D', 'F', 'A']


                Instead of a string for the value lookups, you'd want a list of strings for the exact folder names you need for each range of values. For example:



                breakpoints = [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65]
                folders = [r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7']
                foldername = folders[bisect(breakpoints, -0.72)]


                If you can automate even part of this table generation (using round(), or something similar), of course you should.






                share|improve this answer













                The bisect module will do exactly the right lookup for finding the right bin from a list of breakpoints. In fact, the example in the documentation is exactly a case like this:




                The bisect() function is generally useful for categorizing numeric data. This example uses bisect() to look up a letter grade for an exam total (say) based on a set of ordered numeric breakpoints: 85 and up is an ‘A’, 75..84 is a ‘B’, etc.




                >>> grades = "FEDCBA"
                >>> breakpoints = [30, 44, 66, 75, 85]
                >>> from bisect import bisect
                >>> def grade(total):
                ... return grades[bisect(breakpoints, total)]
                >>> grade(66)
                'C'
                >>> map(grade, [33, 99, 77, 44, 12, 88])
                ['E', 'A', 'B', 'D', 'F', 'A']


                Instead of a string for the value lookups, you'd want a list of strings for the exact folder names you need for each range of values. For example:



                breakpoints = [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65]
                folders = [r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7']
                foldername = folders[bisect(breakpoints, -0.72)]


                If you can automate even part of this table generation (using round(), or something similar), of course you should.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Mar 15 at 17:14









                PeterPeter

                11.7k1847




                11.7k1847























                    13














                    One of the first rules with a block of code like this, is to always make the comparisons be in the same direction. So instead of



                        elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:


                    write



                        elif -0.85 <= value and value < -0.75:


                    At this point you can observe that python allows chaining of comparisons, so you can write:



                        elif -0.85 <= value < -0.75:


                    Which is an improvement itself. Alternatively, you can observe this is an ordered list of comparisons, so if you add in an initial comparisons, you can just write



                        if value < -0.95:        ts_folder = ''
                    elif value < -0.85: ts_folder = r'-0.9'
                    elif value < -0.75: ts_folder = r'-0.8'
                    elif value < -0.65: ts_folder = r'-0.7'
                    elif value < -0.55: ts_folder = r'-0.6'
                    elif value < -0.45: ts_folder = r'-0.5'
                    elif value < -0.35: ts_folder = r'-0.4'
                    elif value < -0.25: ts_folder = r'-0.3'
                    elif value < -0.15: ts_folder = r'-0.2'
                    elif value < -0.05: ts_folder = r'-0.1'
                    elif value < 0.05: ts_folder = r'.0'
                    elif value < 0.15: ts_folder = r'.1'
                    elif value < 0.25: ts_folder = r'.2'
                    elif value < 0.35: ts_folder = r'.3'
                    elif value < 0.45: ts_folder = r'.4'
                    elif value < 0.55: ts_folder = r'.5'
                    elif value < 0.65: ts_folder = r'.6'
                    elif value < 0.75: ts_folder = r'.7'
                    elif value < 0.85: ts_folder = r'.8'
                    elif value < 0.95: ts_folder = r'.9'
                    else: ts_folder = ''


                    That's still quite long, but a) it's a lot more readable; b) it has explicit code to handle value < -0.95 or 0.95 <= value






                    share|improve this answer






























                      13














                      One of the first rules with a block of code like this, is to always make the comparisons be in the same direction. So instead of



                          elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:


                      write



                          elif -0.85 <= value and value < -0.75:


                      At this point you can observe that python allows chaining of comparisons, so you can write:



                          elif -0.85 <= value < -0.75:


                      Which is an improvement itself. Alternatively, you can observe this is an ordered list of comparisons, so if you add in an initial comparisons, you can just write



                          if value < -0.95:        ts_folder = ''
                      elif value < -0.85: ts_folder = r'-0.9'
                      elif value < -0.75: ts_folder = r'-0.8'
                      elif value < -0.65: ts_folder = r'-0.7'
                      elif value < -0.55: ts_folder = r'-0.6'
                      elif value < -0.45: ts_folder = r'-0.5'
                      elif value < -0.35: ts_folder = r'-0.4'
                      elif value < -0.25: ts_folder = r'-0.3'
                      elif value < -0.15: ts_folder = r'-0.2'
                      elif value < -0.05: ts_folder = r'-0.1'
                      elif value < 0.05: ts_folder = r'.0'
                      elif value < 0.15: ts_folder = r'.1'
                      elif value < 0.25: ts_folder = r'.2'
                      elif value < 0.35: ts_folder = r'.3'
                      elif value < 0.45: ts_folder = r'.4'
                      elif value < 0.55: ts_folder = r'.5'
                      elif value < 0.65: ts_folder = r'.6'
                      elif value < 0.75: ts_folder = r'.7'
                      elif value < 0.85: ts_folder = r'.8'
                      elif value < 0.95: ts_folder = r'.9'
                      else: ts_folder = ''


                      That's still quite long, but a) it's a lot more readable; b) it has explicit code to handle value < -0.95 or 0.95 <= value






                      share|improve this answer




























                        13












                        13








                        13







                        One of the first rules with a block of code like this, is to always make the comparisons be in the same direction. So instead of



                            elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:


                        write



                            elif -0.85 <= value and value < -0.75:


                        At this point you can observe that python allows chaining of comparisons, so you can write:



                            elif -0.85 <= value < -0.75:


                        Which is an improvement itself. Alternatively, you can observe this is an ordered list of comparisons, so if you add in an initial comparisons, you can just write



                            if value < -0.95:        ts_folder = ''
                        elif value < -0.85: ts_folder = r'-0.9'
                        elif value < -0.75: ts_folder = r'-0.8'
                        elif value < -0.65: ts_folder = r'-0.7'
                        elif value < -0.55: ts_folder = r'-0.6'
                        elif value < -0.45: ts_folder = r'-0.5'
                        elif value < -0.35: ts_folder = r'-0.4'
                        elif value < -0.25: ts_folder = r'-0.3'
                        elif value < -0.15: ts_folder = r'-0.2'
                        elif value < -0.05: ts_folder = r'-0.1'
                        elif value < 0.05: ts_folder = r'.0'
                        elif value < 0.15: ts_folder = r'.1'
                        elif value < 0.25: ts_folder = r'.2'
                        elif value < 0.35: ts_folder = r'.3'
                        elif value < 0.45: ts_folder = r'.4'
                        elif value < 0.55: ts_folder = r'.5'
                        elif value < 0.65: ts_folder = r'.6'
                        elif value < 0.75: ts_folder = r'.7'
                        elif value < 0.85: ts_folder = r'.8'
                        elif value < 0.95: ts_folder = r'.9'
                        else: ts_folder = ''


                        That's still quite long, but a) it's a lot more readable; b) it has explicit code to handle value < -0.95 or 0.95 <= value






                        share|improve this answer















                        One of the first rules with a block of code like this, is to always make the comparisons be in the same direction. So instead of



                            elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:


                        write



                            elif -0.85 <= value and value < -0.75:


                        At this point you can observe that python allows chaining of comparisons, so you can write:



                            elif -0.85 <= value < -0.75:


                        Which is an improvement itself. Alternatively, you can observe this is an ordered list of comparisons, so if you add in an initial comparisons, you can just write



                            if value < -0.95:        ts_folder = ''
                        elif value < -0.85: ts_folder = r'-0.9'
                        elif value < -0.75: ts_folder = r'-0.8'
                        elif value < -0.65: ts_folder = r'-0.7'
                        elif value < -0.55: ts_folder = r'-0.6'
                        elif value < -0.45: ts_folder = r'-0.5'
                        elif value < -0.35: ts_folder = r'-0.4'
                        elif value < -0.25: ts_folder = r'-0.3'
                        elif value < -0.15: ts_folder = r'-0.2'
                        elif value < -0.05: ts_folder = r'-0.1'
                        elif value < 0.05: ts_folder = r'.0'
                        elif value < 0.15: ts_folder = r'.1'
                        elif value < 0.25: ts_folder = r'.2'
                        elif value < 0.35: ts_folder = r'.3'
                        elif value < 0.45: ts_folder = r'.4'
                        elif value < 0.55: ts_folder = r'.5'
                        elif value < 0.65: ts_folder = r'.6'
                        elif value < 0.75: ts_folder = r'.7'
                        elif value < 0.85: ts_folder = r'.8'
                        elif value < 0.95: ts_folder = r'.9'
                        else: ts_folder = ''


                        That's still quite long, but a) it's a lot more readable; b) it has explicit code to handle value < -0.95 or 0.95 <= value







                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited Mar 16 at 22:18









                        RonJohn

                        139116




                        139116










                        answered Mar 15 at 15:24









                        Martin BonnerMartin Bonner

                        23.7k33267




                        23.7k33267























                            9














                            All answers revolve around rounding, which seems to be fine in this case, but just for the sake of argument I'd like to also point out a cool python use of dictionaries which is often described as an alternative to other languages switch(es) and that in turn allow for arbitrary values.



                            ranges = {
                            (-0.85, -0.95): r'-0.9',
                            (-0.75, -0.85): r'-0.8',
                            (-0.65, -0.75): r'-0.7',
                            (-0.55, -0.65): r'-0.6'
                            ...
                            }

                            def classify (value):
                            for (ceiling, floor), rounded_value in ranges.items():
                            if floor <= value < ceiling:
                            return rounded_value


                            Output:



                            >>> classify(-0.78)
                            -0.8





                            share|improve this answer





















                            • 20





                              In this case you're NOT using the "dict dispatch" trick - you're doing a sequential scan, so you'd get the exact same result with a list of (start, stop, val) tuples (but with the added overhead of creating a dict and doing a useless __getitem__ access).

                              – bruno desthuilliers
                              Mar 15 at 12:39






                            • 2





                              @chepner By editing this code you have made it not work; it indexes into ranges with current_value which is not defined (because you deleted it).

                              – Arthur Tacca
                              Mar 15 at 14:36











                            • @brunodesthuilliers: I would argue the dict is not useless; the code is much more readable, and easy to modify. Sure, it's not efficient (O(n)), but n is small and it may be the right choice in some cases.

                              – danuker
                              Mar 17 at 10:19











                            • @brunodesthuilliers I never said anything about "dict as dispatch table"; I think you confuse me with the author of this answer. I just stumbled across this question and answer and found the answer could not work, and looking into it more found the original answer did work but an editor had broken it while "improving" it. It has since been fixed. Still, if someone considers an answer substantially lacking, I think it makes more sense to post a new one than to totally rewrite the answer in an edit.

                              – Arthur Tacca
                              Mar 18 at 12:22











                            • @ArthurTacca oops, sorry, there was some confusion indeed (actually with not only the author but also with danuker). I cannot edit my comment anymore so I'll delete and repost an edited version.

                              – bruno desthuilliers
                              Mar 18 at 13:09
















                            9














                            All answers revolve around rounding, which seems to be fine in this case, but just for the sake of argument I'd like to also point out a cool python use of dictionaries which is often described as an alternative to other languages switch(es) and that in turn allow for arbitrary values.



                            ranges = {
                            (-0.85, -0.95): r'-0.9',
                            (-0.75, -0.85): r'-0.8',
                            (-0.65, -0.75): r'-0.7',
                            (-0.55, -0.65): r'-0.6'
                            ...
                            }

                            def classify (value):
                            for (ceiling, floor), rounded_value in ranges.items():
                            if floor <= value < ceiling:
                            return rounded_value


                            Output:



                            >>> classify(-0.78)
                            -0.8





                            share|improve this answer





















                            • 20





                              In this case you're NOT using the "dict dispatch" trick - you're doing a sequential scan, so you'd get the exact same result with a list of (start, stop, val) tuples (but with the added overhead of creating a dict and doing a useless __getitem__ access).

                              – bruno desthuilliers
                              Mar 15 at 12:39






                            • 2





                              @chepner By editing this code you have made it not work; it indexes into ranges with current_value which is not defined (because you deleted it).

                              – Arthur Tacca
                              Mar 15 at 14:36











                            • @brunodesthuilliers: I would argue the dict is not useless; the code is much more readable, and easy to modify. Sure, it's not efficient (O(n)), but n is small and it may be the right choice in some cases.

                              – danuker
                              Mar 17 at 10:19











                            • @brunodesthuilliers I never said anything about "dict as dispatch table"; I think you confuse me with the author of this answer. I just stumbled across this question and answer and found the answer could not work, and looking into it more found the original answer did work but an editor had broken it while "improving" it. It has since been fixed. Still, if someone considers an answer substantially lacking, I think it makes more sense to post a new one than to totally rewrite the answer in an edit.

                              – Arthur Tacca
                              Mar 18 at 12:22











                            • @ArthurTacca oops, sorry, there was some confusion indeed (actually with not only the author but also with danuker). I cannot edit my comment anymore so I'll delete and repost an edited version.

                              – bruno desthuilliers
                              Mar 18 at 13:09














                            9












                            9








                            9







                            All answers revolve around rounding, which seems to be fine in this case, but just for the sake of argument I'd like to also point out a cool python use of dictionaries which is often described as an alternative to other languages switch(es) and that in turn allow for arbitrary values.



                            ranges = {
                            (-0.85, -0.95): r'-0.9',
                            (-0.75, -0.85): r'-0.8',
                            (-0.65, -0.75): r'-0.7',
                            (-0.55, -0.65): r'-0.6'
                            ...
                            }

                            def classify (value):
                            for (ceiling, floor), rounded_value in ranges.items():
                            if floor <= value < ceiling:
                            return rounded_value


                            Output:



                            >>> classify(-0.78)
                            -0.8





                            share|improve this answer















                            All answers revolve around rounding, which seems to be fine in this case, but just for the sake of argument I'd like to also point out a cool python use of dictionaries which is often described as an alternative to other languages switch(es) and that in turn allow for arbitrary values.



                            ranges = {
                            (-0.85, -0.95): r'-0.9',
                            (-0.75, -0.85): r'-0.8',
                            (-0.65, -0.75): r'-0.7',
                            (-0.55, -0.65): r'-0.6'
                            ...
                            }

                            def classify (value):
                            for (ceiling, floor), rounded_value in ranges.items():
                            if floor <= value < ceiling:
                            return rounded_value


                            Output:



                            >>> classify(-0.78)
                            -0.8






                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited Mar 15 at 14:38









                            chepner

                            258k34249343




                            258k34249343










                            answered Mar 15 at 11:47









                            Hirabayashi TaroHirabayashi Taro

                            553311




                            553311








                            • 20





                              In this case you're NOT using the "dict dispatch" trick - you're doing a sequential scan, so you'd get the exact same result with a list of (start, stop, val) tuples (but with the added overhead of creating a dict and doing a useless __getitem__ access).

                              – bruno desthuilliers
                              Mar 15 at 12:39






                            • 2





                              @chepner By editing this code you have made it not work; it indexes into ranges with current_value which is not defined (because you deleted it).

                              – Arthur Tacca
                              Mar 15 at 14:36











                            • @brunodesthuilliers: I would argue the dict is not useless; the code is much more readable, and easy to modify. Sure, it's not efficient (O(n)), but n is small and it may be the right choice in some cases.

                              – danuker
                              Mar 17 at 10:19











                            • @brunodesthuilliers I never said anything about "dict as dispatch table"; I think you confuse me with the author of this answer. I just stumbled across this question and answer and found the answer could not work, and looking into it more found the original answer did work but an editor had broken it while "improving" it. It has since been fixed. Still, if someone considers an answer substantially lacking, I think it makes more sense to post a new one than to totally rewrite the answer in an edit.

                              – Arthur Tacca
                              Mar 18 at 12:22











                            • @ArthurTacca oops, sorry, there was some confusion indeed (actually with not only the author but also with danuker). I cannot edit my comment anymore so I'll delete and repost an edited version.

                              – bruno desthuilliers
                              Mar 18 at 13:09














                            • 20





                              In this case you're NOT using the "dict dispatch" trick - you're doing a sequential scan, so you'd get the exact same result with a list of (start, stop, val) tuples (but with the added overhead of creating a dict and doing a useless __getitem__ access).

                              – bruno desthuilliers
                              Mar 15 at 12:39






                            • 2





                              @chepner By editing this code you have made it not work; it indexes into ranges with current_value which is not defined (because you deleted it).

                              – Arthur Tacca
                              Mar 15 at 14:36











                            • @brunodesthuilliers: I would argue the dict is not useless; the code is much more readable, and easy to modify. Sure, it's not efficient (O(n)), but n is small and it may be the right choice in some cases.

                              – danuker
                              Mar 17 at 10:19











                            • @brunodesthuilliers I never said anything about "dict as dispatch table"; I think you confuse me with the author of this answer. I just stumbled across this question and answer and found the answer could not work, and looking into it more found the original answer did work but an editor had broken it while "improving" it. It has since been fixed. Still, if someone considers an answer substantially lacking, I think it makes more sense to post a new one than to totally rewrite the answer in an edit.

                              – Arthur Tacca
                              Mar 18 at 12:22











                            • @ArthurTacca oops, sorry, there was some confusion indeed (actually with not only the author but also with danuker). I cannot edit my comment anymore so I'll delete and repost an edited version.

                              – bruno desthuilliers
                              Mar 18 at 13:09








                            20




                            20





                            In this case you're NOT using the "dict dispatch" trick - you're doing a sequential scan, so you'd get the exact same result with a list of (start, stop, val) tuples (but with the added overhead of creating a dict and doing a useless __getitem__ access).

                            – bruno desthuilliers
                            Mar 15 at 12:39





                            In this case you're NOT using the "dict dispatch" trick - you're doing a sequential scan, so you'd get the exact same result with a list of (start, stop, val) tuples (but with the added overhead of creating a dict and doing a useless __getitem__ access).

                            – bruno desthuilliers
                            Mar 15 at 12:39




                            2




                            2





                            @chepner By editing this code you have made it not work; it indexes into ranges with current_value which is not defined (because you deleted it).

                            – Arthur Tacca
                            Mar 15 at 14:36





                            @chepner By editing this code you have made it not work; it indexes into ranges with current_value which is not defined (because you deleted it).

                            – Arthur Tacca
                            Mar 15 at 14:36













                            @brunodesthuilliers: I would argue the dict is not useless; the code is much more readable, and easy to modify. Sure, it's not efficient (O(n)), but n is small and it may be the right choice in some cases.

                            – danuker
                            Mar 17 at 10:19





                            @brunodesthuilliers: I would argue the dict is not useless; the code is much more readable, and easy to modify. Sure, it's not efficient (O(n)), but n is small and it may be the right choice in some cases.

                            – danuker
                            Mar 17 at 10:19













                            @brunodesthuilliers I never said anything about "dict as dispatch table"; I think you confuse me with the author of this answer. I just stumbled across this question and answer and found the answer could not work, and looking into it more found the original answer did work but an editor had broken it while "improving" it. It has since been fixed. Still, if someone considers an answer substantially lacking, I think it makes more sense to post a new one than to totally rewrite the answer in an edit.

                            – Arthur Tacca
                            Mar 18 at 12:22





                            @brunodesthuilliers I never said anything about "dict as dispatch table"; I think you confuse me with the author of this answer. I just stumbled across this question and answer and found the answer could not work, and looking into it more found the original answer did work but an editor had broken it while "improving" it. It has since been fixed. Still, if someone considers an answer substantially lacking, I think it makes more sense to post a new one than to totally rewrite the answer in an edit.

                            – Arthur Tacca
                            Mar 18 at 12:22













                            @ArthurTacca oops, sorry, there was some confusion indeed (actually with not only the author but also with danuker). I cannot edit my comment anymore so I'll delete and repost an edited version.

                            – bruno desthuilliers
                            Mar 18 at 13:09





                            @ArthurTacca oops, sorry, there was some confusion indeed (actually with not only the author but also with danuker). I cannot edit my comment anymore so I'll delete and repost an edited version.

                            – bruno desthuilliers
                            Mar 18 at 13:09











                            8














                            You can use the round() built-in :



                            ts_folder = "\" + str(round(value + 1e-16, 1)) # To round values like .05 to .1, not .0
                            if ts_folder == r"-0.0": ts_folder = r".0"


                            More on round()






                            share|improve this answer





















                            • 1





                              It doesn't seem to work for [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.0], compared to OP's code. I'm not sure if it's a bug or a feature.

                              – Eric Duminil
                              Mar 15 at 17:41













                            • Still have an issue with [-0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01], as they get rounded to -0.0 instead of 0.0 as in the OP.

                              – Wlerin
                              Mar 17 at 6:25













                            • Gosh I forgot that, thanks @Wlerin

                              – Fukiyel
                              Mar 17 at 6:55











                            • I suspect you meant to include a *10 inside the round() call as well, but unfortunately this just changes the problem from negative zero to banker's rounding. Perhaps the simplest solution is to round the value using your original method, then check if it's equal to 0 (because -0.0 == 0.0) and if so set it to 0.

                              – Wlerin
                              Mar 17 at 7:46


















                            8














                            You can use the round() built-in :



                            ts_folder = "\" + str(round(value + 1e-16, 1)) # To round values like .05 to .1, not .0
                            if ts_folder == r"-0.0": ts_folder = r".0"


                            More on round()






                            share|improve this answer





















                            • 1





                              It doesn't seem to work for [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.0], compared to OP's code. I'm not sure if it's a bug or a feature.

                              – Eric Duminil
                              Mar 15 at 17:41













                            • Still have an issue with [-0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01], as they get rounded to -0.0 instead of 0.0 as in the OP.

                              – Wlerin
                              Mar 17 at 6:25













                            • Gosh I forgot that, thanks @Wlerin

                              – Fukiyel
                              Mar 17 at 6:55











                            • I suspect you meant to include a *10 inside the round() call as well, but unfortunately this just changes the problem from negative zero to banker's rounding. Perhaps the simplest solution is to round the value using your original method, then check if it's equal to 0 (because -0.0 == 0.0) and if so set it to 0.

                              – Wlerin
                              Mar 17 at 7:46
















                            8












                            8








                            8







                            You can use the round() built-in :



                            ts_folder = "\" + str(round(value + 1e-16, 1)) # To round values like .05 to .1, not .0
                            if ts_folder == r"-0.0": ts_folder = r".0"


                            More on round()






                            share|improve this answer















                            You can use the round() built-in :



                            ts_folder = "\" + str(round(value + 1e-16, 1)) # To round values like .05 to .1, not .0
                            if ts_folder == r"-0.0": ts_folder = r".0"


                            More on round()







                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited Mar 17 at 7:53

























                            answered Mar 15 at 10:48









                            FukiyelFukiyel

                            1,078317




                            1,078317








                            • 1





                              It doesn't seem to work for [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.0], compared to OP's code. I'm not sure if it's a bug or a feature.

                              – Eric Duminil
                              Mar 15 at 17:41













                            • Still have an issue with [-0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01], as they get rounded to -0.0 instead of 0.0 as in the OP.

                              – Wlerin
                              Mar 17 at 6:25













                            • Gosh I forgot that, thanks @Wlerin

                              – Fukiyel
                              Mar 17 at 6:55











                            • I suspect you meant to include a *10 inside the round() call as well, but unfortunately this just changes the problem from negative zero to banker's rounding. Perhaps the simplest solution is to round the value using your original method, then check if it's equal to 0 (because -0.0 == 0.0) and if so set it to 0.

                              – Wlerin
                              Mar 17 at 7:46
















                            • 1





                              It doesn't seem to work for [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.0], compared to OP's code. I'm not sure if it's a bug or a feature.

                              – Eric Duminil
                              Mar 15 at 17:41













                            • Still have an issue with [-0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01], as they get rounded to -0.0 instead of 0.0 as in the OP.

                              – Wlerin
                              Mar 17 at 6:25













                            • Gosh I forgot that, thanks @Wlerin

                              – Fukiyel
                              Mar 17 at 6:55











                            • I suspect you meant to include a *10 inside the round() call as well, but unfortunately this just changes the problem from negative zero to banker's rounding. Perhaps the simplest solution is to round the value using your original method, then check if it's equal to 0 (because -0.0 == 0.0) and if so set it to 0.

                              – Wlerin
                              Mar 17 at 7:46










                            1




                            1





                            It doesn't seem to work for [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.0], compared to OP's code. I'm not sure if it's a bug or a feature.

                            – Eric Duminil
                            Mar 15 at 17:41







                            It doesn't seem to work for [-0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01, 0.0], compared to OP's code. I'm not sure if it's a bug or a feature.

                            – Eric Duminil
                            Mar 15 at 17:41















                            Still have an issue with [-0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01], as they get rounded to -0.0 instead of 0.0 as in the OP.

                            – Wlerin
                            Mar 17 at 6:25







                            Still have an issue with [-0.05, -0.04, -0.03, -0.02, -0.01], as they get rounded to -0.0 instead of 0.0 as in the OP.

                            – Wlerin
                            Mar 17 at 6:25















                            Gosh I forgot that, thanks @Wlerin

                            – Fukiyel
                            Mar 17 at 6:55





                            Gosh I forgot that, thanks @Wlerin

                            – Fukiyel
                            Mar 17 at 6:55













                            I suspect you meant to include a *10 inside the round() call as well, but unfortunately this just changes the problem from negative zero to banker's rounding. Perhaps the simplest solution is to round the value using your original method, then check if it's equal to 0 (because -0.0 == 0.0) and if so set it to 0.

                            – Wlerin
                            Mar 17 at 7:46







                            I suspect you meant to include a *10 inside the round() call as well, but unfortunately this just changes the problem from negative zero to banker's rounding. Perhaps the simplest solution is to round the value using your original method, then check if it's equal to 0 (because -0.0 == 0.0) and if so set it to 0.

                            – Wlerin
                            Mar 17 at 7:46













                            4














                            Actually in Python 3 .85 will be round to .8. As per the question .85 should be round to .9.



                            Can you try the following:



                            round2 = lambda x, y=None: round(x+1e-15, y)
                            ts_folder = r'{}'.format(str(round2(value, 1)))


                            Output:



                            >>> round2(.85, 1)
                            0.9
                            >>> round2(-.85, 1)
                            -0.8





                            share|improve this answer
























                            • As Wlerin said under my post : -.05, -.04, -.03 etc will alas be transformed to -0.0, and not .0

                              – Fukiyel
                              Mar 17 at 7:00
















                            4














                            Actually in Python 3 .85 will be round to .8. As per the question .85 should be round to .9.



                            Can you try the following:



                            round2 = lambda x, y=None: round(x+1e-15, y)
                            ts_folder = r'{}'.format(str(round2(value, 1)))


                            Output:



                            >>> round2(.85, 1)
                            0.9
                            >>> round2(-.85, 1)
                            -0.8





                            share|improve this answer
























                            • As Wlerin said under my post : -.05, -.04, -.03 etc will alas be transformed to -0.0, and not .0

                              – Fukiyel
                              Mar 17 at 7:00














                            4












                            4








                            4







                            Actually in Python 3 .85 will be round to .8. As per the question .85 should be round to .9.



                            Can you try the following:



                            round2 = lambda x, y=None: round(x+1e-15, y)
                            ts_folder = r'{}'.format(str(round2(value, 1)))


                            Output:



                            >>> round2(.85, 1)
                            0.9
                            >>> round2(-.85, 1)
                            -0.8





                            share|improve this answer













                            Actually in Python 3 .85 will be round to .8. As per the question .85 should be round to .9.



                            Can you try the following:



                            round2 = lambda x, y=None: round(x+1e-15, y)
                            ts_folder = r'{}'.format(str(round2(value, 1)))


                            Output:



                            >>> round2(.85, 1)
                            0.9
                            >>> round2(-.85, 1)
                            -0.8






                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Mar 15 at 11:02









                            JerilJeril

                            2,4841836




                            2,4841836













                            • As Wlerin said under my post : -.05, -.04, -.03 etc will alas be transformed to -0.0, and not .0

                              – Fukiyel
                              Mar 17 at 7:00



















                            • As Wlerin said under my post : -.05, -.04, -.03 etc will alas be transformed to -0.0, and not .0

                              – Fukiyel
                              Mar 17 at 7:00

















                            As Wlerin said under my post : -.05, -.04, -.03 etc will alas be transformed to -0.0, and not .0

                            – Fukiyel
                            Mar 17 at 7:00





                            As Wlerin said under my post : -.05, -.04, -.03 etc will alas be transformed to -0.0, and not .0

                            – Fukiyel
                            Mar 17 at 7:00











                            2














                            How about turning it into a loop?



                            def classify(value):
                            i = -5
                            while i < 95:
                            if value < (i + 10) / 100.0 and value >= i / 100.0:
                            return '\' + repr((i + 5) / 100.0)
                            i += 10


                            it's not efficient by any means, but it's equivalent to what you have, just shorter.






                            share|improve this answer
























                            • You need to start at ` i = -95`, though.

                              – Eric Duminil
                              Mar 15 at 17:38
















                            2














                            How about turning it into a loop?



                            def classify(value):
                            i = -5
                            while i < 95:
                            if value < (i + 10) / 100.0 and value >= i / 100.0:
                            return '\' + repr((i + 5) / 100.0)
                            i += 10


                            it's not efficient by any means, but it's equivalent to what you have, just shorter.






                            share|improve this answer
























                            • You need to start at ` i = -95`, though.

                              – Eric Duminil
                              Mar 15 at 17:38














                            2












                            2








                            2







                            How about turning it into a loop?



                            def classify(value):
                            i = -5
                            while i < 95:
                            if value < (i + 10) / 100.0 and value >= i / 100.0:
                            return '\' + repr((i + 5) / 100.0)
                            i += 10


                            it's not efficient by any means, but it's equivalent to what you have, just shorter.






                            share|improve this answer













                            How about turning it into a loop?



                            def classify(value):
                            i = -5
                            while i < 95:
                            if value < (i + 10) / 100.0 and value >= i / 100.0:
                            return '\' + repr((i + 5) / 100.0)
                            i += 10


                            it's not efficient by any means, but it's equivalent to what you have, just shorter.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Mar 15 at 12:33









                            MehrdadMehrdad

                            129k90416762




                            129k90416762













                            • You need to start at ` i = -95`, though.

                              – Eric Duminil
                              Mar 15 at 17:38



















                            • You need to start at ` i = -95`, though.

                              – Eric Duminil
                              Mar 15 at 17:38

















                            You need to start at ` i = -95`, though.

                            – Eric Duminil
                            Mar 15 at 17:38





                            You need to start at ` i = -95`, though.

                            – Eric Duminil
                            Mar 15 at 17:38











                            2














                            from decimal import Decimal

                            def classify(value):
                            number = Decimal(value)
                            result = "%.2f" % (number)
                            return Decimal(round(float(result), 2))





                            share|improve this answer


























                            • using Decimal is a good idea, but this definitely doesn't work as is.

                              – Wlerin
                              Mar 17 at 6:29
















                            2














                            from decimal import Decimal

                            def classify(value):
                            number = Decimal(value)
                            result = "%.2f" % (number)
                            return Decimal(round(float(result), 2))





                            share|improve this answer


























                            • using Decimal is a good idea, but this definitely doesn't work as is.

                              – Wlerin
                              Mar 17 at 6:29














                            2












                            2








                            2







                            from decimal import Decimal

                            def classify(value):
                            number = Decimal(value)
                            result = "%.2f" % (number)
                            return Decimal(round(float(result), 2))





                            share|improve this answer















                            from decimal import Decimal

                            def classify(value):
                            number = Decimal(value)
                            result = "%.2f" % (number)
                            return Decimal(round(float(result), 2))






                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited Mar 15 at 18:51









                            wizzwizz4

                            3,77511738




                            3,77511738










                            answered Mar 15 at 11:02









                            Asif AkhtarAsif Akhtar

                            96110




                            96110













                            • using Decimal is a good idea, but this definitely doesn't work as is.

                              – Wlerin
                              Mar 17 at 6:29



















                            • using Decimal is a good idea, but this definitely doesn't work as is.

                              – Wlerin
                              Mar 17 at 6:29

















                            using Decimal is a good idea, but this definitely doesn't work as is.

                            – Wlerin
                            Mar 17 at 6:29





                            using Decimal is a good idea, but this definitely doesn't work as is.

                            – Wlerin
                            Mar 17 at 6:29











                            1














                            You don't need the and value >= -.85 in elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:; if the value isn't greater than or equal to -.85, then you won't reach the elif. You can also just turn all the elifs into if by having each one return immediately.



                            In this case, since you have the boundaries at regular intervals, you can just round (in the general case of regular intervals, you may have to divide and then round, for instance if the intervals are at every three units, then you would divide the number by three and round). In the general case, it's faster to store the boundaries in a tree structure, and then do a binary search for where the item goes.



                            Doing a binary search explicitly would be something like this:



                            def classify(value):   
                            if value < -.05:
                            if value < -.45:
                            if value < -.65:
                            if value < -.85:
                            if value < -.95:
                            return None
                            return r'-0.9'
                            if value < -.75:
                            return r'-0.8'
                            return r'-0.7'
                            ...


                            Although this code is harder to read than yours, it runs in time logarithmic rather than linear with respect to the number of boundaries.



                            If the number of items is significantly larger than the number of boundaries, it would probably be faster to actually create a tree of the items, and insert the boundaries.



                            You could also create a list, sort it, and then look at the index. For instance, compare (sorted([(_-9.5)/10 for _ in range(20)]+[x]).index(x)-9)/10 to your function.






                            share|improve this answer




























                              1














                              You don't need the and value >= -.85 in elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:; if the value isn't greater than or equal to -.85, then you won't reach the elif. You can also just turn all the elifs into if by having each one return immediately.



                              In this case, since you have the boundaries at regular intervals, you can just round (in the general case of regular intervals, you may have to divide and then round, for instance if the intervals are at every three units, then you would divide the number by three and round). In the general case, it's faster to store the boundaries in a tree structure, and then do a binary search for where the item goes.



                              Doing a binary search explicitly would be something like this:



                              def classify(value):   
                              if value < -.05:
                              if value < -.45:
                              if value < -.65:
                              if value < -.85:
                              if value < -.95:
                              return None
                              return r'-0.9'
                              if value < -.75:
                              return r'-0.8'
                              return r'-0.7'
                              ...


                              Although this code is harder to read than yours, it runs in time logarithmic rather than linear with respect to the number of boundaries.



                              If the number of items is significantly larger than the number of boundaries, it would probably be faster to actually create a tree of the items, and insert the boundaries.



                              You could also create a list, sort it, and then look at the index. For instance, compare (sorted([(_-9.5)/10 for _ in range(20)]+[x]).index(x)-9)/10 to your function.






                              share|improve this answer


























                                1












                                1








                                1







                                You don't need the and value >= -.85 in elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:; if the value isn't greater than or equal to -.85, then you won't reach the elif. You can also just turn all the elifs into if by having each one return immediately.



                                In this case, since you have the boundaries at regular intervals, you can just round (in the general case of regular intervals, you may have to divide and then round, for instance if the intervals are at every three units, then you would divide the number by three and round). In the general case, it's faster to store the boundaries in a tree structure, and then do a binary search for where the item goes.



                                Doing a binary search explicitly would be something like this:



                                def classify(value):   
                                if value < -.05:
                                if value < -.45:
                                if value < -.65:
                                if value < -.85:
                                if value < -.95:
                                return None
                                return r'-0.9'
                                if value < -.75:
                                return r'-0.8'
                                return r'-0.7'
                                ...


                                Although this code is harder to read than yours, it runs in time logarithmic rather than linear with respect to the number of boundaries.



                                If the number of items is significantly larger than the number of boundaries, it would probably be faster to actually create a tree of the items, and insert the boundaries.



                                You could also create a list, sort it, and then look at the index. For instance, compare (sorted([(_-9.5)/10 for _ in range(20)]+[x]).index(x)-9)/10 to your function.






                                share|improve this answer













                                You don't need the and value >= -.85 in elif value < -0.75 and value >= -0.85:; if the value isn't greater than or equal to -.85, then you won't reach the elif. You can also just turn all the elifs into if by having each one return immediately.



                                In this case, since you have the boundaries at regular intervals, you can just round (in the general case of regular intervals, you may have to divide and then round, for instance if the intervals are at every three units, then you would divide the number by three and round). In the general case, it's faster to store the boundaries in a tree structure, and then do a binary search for where the item goes.



                                Doing a binary search explicitly would be something like this:



                                def classify(value):   
                                if value < -.05:
                                if value < -.45:
                                if value < -.65:
                                if value < -.85:
                                if value < -.95:
                                return None
                                return r'-0.9'
                                if value < -.75:
                                return r'-0.8'
                                return r'-0.7'
                                ...


                                Although this code is harder to read than yours, it runs in time logarithmic rather than linear with respect to the number of boundaries.



                                If the number of items is significantly larger than the number of boundaries, it would probably be faster to actually create a tree of the items, and insert the boundaries.



                                You could also create a list, sort it, and then look at the index. For instance, compare (sorted([(_-9.5)/10 for _ in range(20)]+[x]).index(x)-9)/10 to your function.







                                share|improve this answer












                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer










                                answered Mar 15 at 16:37









                                AcccumulationAcccumulation

                                1,43329




                                1,43329























                                    1














                                    Take a look at the round() function in python. Maybe you can work it out without the if.



                                    With this function you can specify the number of digits you need to keep.
                                    For example :



                                    x = round(5.76543, 2)
                                    print(x)


                                    That code will print 5.77






                                    share|improve this answer





















                                    • 2





                                      Please try and answer with a clear example

                                      – AJS
                                      Mar 15 at 10:52
















                                    1














                                    Take a look at the round() function in python. Maybe you can work it out without the if.



                                    With this function you can specify the number of digits you need to keep.
                                    For example :



                                    x = round(5.76543, 2)
                                    print(x)


                                    That code will print 5.77






                                    share|improve this answer





















                                    • 2





                                      Please try and answer with a clear example

                                      – AJS
                                      Mar 15 at 10:52














                                    1












                                    1








                                    1







                                    Take a look at the round() function in python. Maybe you can work it out without the if.



                                    With this function you can specify the number of digits you need to keep.
                                    For example :



                                    x = round(5.76543, 2)
                                    print(x)


                                    That code will print 5.77






                                    share|improve this answer















                                    Take a look at the round() function in python. Maybe you can work it out without the if.



                                    With this function you can specify the number of digits you need to keep.
                                    For example :



                                    x = round(5.76543, 2)
                                    print(x)


                                    That code will print 5.77







                                    share|improve this answer














                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer








                                    edited Mar 15 at 19:34









                                    Olivier Melançon

                                    14.1k22142




                                    14.1k22142










                                    answered Mar 15 at 10:48









                                    MelKoutchMelKoutch

                                    555




                                    555








                                    • 2





                                      Please try and answer with a clear example

                                      – AJS
                                      Mar 15 at 10:52














                                    • 2





                                      Please try and answer with a clear example

                                      – AJS
                                      Mar 15 at 10:52








                                    2




                                    2





                                    Please try and answer with a clear example

                                    – AJS
                                    Mar 15 at 10:52





                                    Please try and answer with a clear example

                                    – AJS
                                    Mar 15 at 10:52











                                    1














                                    Many of these answers suggest some kind of rounding as a solution. Unfortunately, there are three problems with using rounding for this purpose, and at the time of writing all of them fell prey to at least one.




                                    • Floating point representation of decimal values is inexact. For example, the float 0.85 is in fact 0.8499999999999999777955395....

                                    • round() uses ties-round-to-even, also known as scientific or banker's rounding, rather than the arithmetic rounding many of us learned in school. This means e.g. 0.85 rounds to 0.8 instead of 0.9, and 0.25 rounds to 0.2 instead of 0.3.

                                    • very small negative floats (and Decimals) round up to -0.0 rather than 0.0 as the OP's mapping requires.


                                    These can all be solved using the Decimal module, though not as prettily as I'd like:



                                    from decimal import Decimal, ROUND_HALF_UP, ROUND_HALF_DOWN

                                    def classify(value):
                                    number = Decimal('{:.2f}'.format(value))

                                    if number < 0:
                                    round_method = ROUND_HALF_DOWN
                                    else:
                                    round_method = ROUND_HALF_UP
                                    rounded_number = number.quantize(Decimal('0.1'), rounding=round_method)

                                    if rounded_number == 0.0:
                                    rounded_number = Decimal('0.0')
                                    return r'{}'.format(rounded_number)


                                    Both ROUND_HALF_DOWN and ROUND_HALF_UP are required as ROUND_HALF_UP actually rounds away from zero rather than towards Infinity. .quantize rounds a Decimal value to the places given by the first argument, and allows us to specify a rounding method.



                                    Bonus: Bisect Breakpoints using range()



                                    For the bisect solutions, this will generate the breakpoints used by the OP:



                                    from decimal import Decimal
                                    breakpoints = [Decimal('{}e-2'.format(e)) for e in range(-85, 96, 10)]





                                    share|improve this answer






























                                      1














                                      Many of these answers suggest some kind of rounding as a solution. Unfortunately, there are three problems with using rounding for this purpose, and at the time of writing all of them fell prey to at least one.




                                      • Floating point representation of decimal values is inexact. For example, the float 0.85 is in fact 0.8499999999999999777955395....

                                      • round() uses ties-round-to-even, also known as scientific or banker's rounding, rather than the arithmetic rounding many of us learned in school. This means e.g. 0.85 rounds to 0.8 instead of 0.9, and 0.25 rounds to 0.2 instead of 0.3.

                                      • very small negative floats (and Decimals) round up to -0.0 rather than 0.0 as the OP's mapping requires.


                                      These can all be solved using the Decimal module, though not as prettily as I'd like:



                                      from decimal import Decimal, ROUND_HALF_UP, ROUND_HALF_DOWN

                                      def classify(value):
                                      number = Decimal('{:.2f}'.format(value))

                                      if number < 0:
                                      round_method = ROUND_HALF_DOWN
                                      else:
                                      round_method = ROUND_HALF_UP
                                      rounded_number = number.quantize(Decimal('0.1'), rounding=round_method)

                                      if rounded_number == 0.0:
                                      rounded_number = Decimal('0.0')
                                      return r'{}'.format(rounded_number)


                                      Both ROUND_HALF_DOWN and ROUND_HALF_UP are required as ROUND_HALF_UP actually rounds away from zero rather than towards Infinity. .quantize rounds a Decimal value to the places given by the first argument, and allows us to specify a rounding method.



                                      Bonus: Bisect Breakpoints using range()



                                      For the bisect solutions, this will generate the breakpoints used by the OP:



                                      from decimal import Decimal
                                      breakpoints = [Decimal('{}e-2'.format(e)) for e in range(-85, 96, 10)]





                                      share|improve this answer




























                                        1












                                        1








                                        1







                                        Many of these answers suggest some kind of rounding as a solution. Unfortunately, there are three problems with using rounding for this purpose, and at the time of writing all of them fell prey to at least one.




                                        • Floating point representation of decimal values is inexact. For example, the float 0.85 is in fact 0.8499999999999999777955395....

                                        • round() uses ties-round-to-even, also known as scientific or banker's rounding, rather than the arithmetic rounding many of us learned in school. This means e.g. 0.85 rounds to 0.8 instead of 0.9, and 0.25 rounds to 0.2 instead of 0.3.

                                        • very small negative floats (and Decimals) round up to -0.0 rather than 0.0 as the OP's mapping requires.


                                        These can all be solved using the Decimal module, though not as prettily as I'd like:



                                        from decimal import Decimal, ROUND_HALF_UP, ROUND_HALF_DOWN

                                        def classify(value):
                                        number = Decimal('{:.2f}'.format(value))

                                        if number < 0:
                                        round_method = ROUND_HALF_DOWN
                                        else:
                                        round_method = ROUND_HALF_UP
                                        rounded_number = number.quantize(Decimal('0.1'), rounding=round_method)

                                        if rounded_number == 0.0:
                                        rounded_number = Decimal('0.0')
                                        return r'{}'.format(rounded_number)


                                        Both ROUND_HALF_DOWN and ROUND_HALF_UP are required as ROUND_HALF_UP actually rounds away from zero rather than towards Infinity. .quantize rounds a Decimal value to the places given by the first argument, and allows us to specify a rounding method.



                                        Bonus: Bisect Breakpoints using range()



                                        For the bisect solutions, this will generate the breakpoints used by the OP:



                                        from decimal import Decimal
                                        breakpoints = [Decimal('{}e-2'.format(e)) for e in range(-85, 96, 10)]





                                        share|improve this answer















                                        Many of these answers suggest some kind of rounding as a solution. Unfortunately, there are three problems with using rounding for this purpose, and at the time of writing all of them fell prey to at least one.




                                        • Floating point representation of decimal values is inexact. For example, the float 0.85 is in fact 0.8499999999999999777955395....

                                        • round() uses ties-round-to-even, also known as scientific or banker's rounding, rather than the arithmetic rounding many of us learned in school. This means e.g. 0.85 rounds to 0.8 instead of 0.9, and 0.25 rounds to 0.2 instead of 0.3.

                                        • very small negative floats (and Decimals) round up to -0.0 rather than 0.0 as the OP's mapping requires.


                                        These can all be solved using the Decimal module, though not as prettily as I'd like:



                                        from decimal import Decimal, ROUND_HALF_UP, ROUND_HALF_DOWN

                                        def classify(value):
                                        number = Decimal('{:.2f}'.format(value))

                                        if number < 0:
                                        round_method = ROUND_HALF_DOWN
                                        else:
                                        round_method = ROUND_HALF_UP
                                        rounded_number = number.quantize(Decimal('0.1'), rounding=round_method)

                                        if rounded_number == 0.0:
                                        rounded_number = Decimal('0.0')
                                        return r'{}'.format(rounded_number)


                                        Both ROUND_HALF_DOWN and ROUND_HALF_UP are required as ROUND_HALF_UP actually rounds away from zero rather than towards Infinity. .quantize rounds a Decimal value to the places given by the first argument, and allows us to specify a rounding method.



                                        Bonus: Bisect Breakpoints using range()



                                        For the bisect solutions, this will generate the breakpoints used by the OP:



                                        from decimal import Decimal
                                        breakpoints = [Decimal('{}e-2'.format(e)) for e in range(-85, 96, 10)]






                                        share|improve this answer














                                        share|improve this answer



                                        share|improve this answer








                                        edited Mar 17 at 8:08

























                                        answered Mar 17 at 7:28









                                        WlerinWlerin

                                        24219




                                        24219























                                            0














                                            Try something like this, if you don't like loops:



                                            def classify(value): 
                                            endpts = [-0.95, -0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]
                                            ts_folder = [ r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7', r'-0.6', r'-0.5', r'-0.4', r'-0.3', r'-0.2', r'-0.1', r'.0', r'.1', r'.2', r'.3', r'.4', r'.5', r'.6', r'.7', r'.8', r'.9']
                                            idx = [value >= end for end in endpts].index(False)
                                            if not idx:
                                            raise ValueError('Value outside of range')
                                            return ts_folder[idx-1]


                                            Of course, the loop is just "hidden" in the list comprehension.
                                            Obviously, in this example, it would be better to generate endpts and ts_fol programmatically rather than writing them all out, but you indicated that in the real situation the endpoints and values aren't so straightforward.



                                            This raises a ValueError if value ≥ 0.95 (because False is not found in the list comprehension) or if value < -0.95 (because then idx is 0); the original version raises a UnboundLocalError in these cases.



                                            You could also save three lines and skip a few comparisons by doing this:



                                            def classify(value):
                                            endpts = [-0.95, -0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]
                                            ts_fol = [ None, r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7', r'-0.6', r'-0.5', r'-0.4', r'-0.3', r'-0.2', r'-0.1', r'.0', r'.1', r'.2', r'.3', r'.4', r'.5', r'.6', r'.7', r'.8', r'.9']
                                            return next((ts for ts, end in zip(ts_fol, endpts) if value < end), None)


                                            This version returns None rather than raising exceptions for any value outside the bounds.






                                            share|improve this answer






























                                              0














                                              Try something like this, if you don't like loops:



                                              def classify(value): 
                                              endpts = [-0.95, -0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]
                                              ts_folder = [ r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7', r'-0.6', r'-0.5', r'-0.4', r'-0.3', r'-0.2', r'-0.1', r'.0', r'.1', r'.2', r'.3', r'.4', r'.5', r'.6', r'.7', r'.8', r'.9']
                                              idx = [value >= end for end in endpts].index(False)
                                              if not idx:
                                              raise ValueError('Value outside of range')
                                              return ts_folder[idx-1]


                                              Of course, the loop is just "hidden" in the list comprehension.
                                              Obviously, in this example, it would be better to generate endpts and ts_fol programmatically rather than writing them all out, but you indicated that in the real situation the endpoints and values aren't so straightforward.



                                              This raises a ValueError if value ≥ 0.95 (because False is not found in the list comprehension) or if value < -0.95 (because then idx is 0); the original version raises a UnboundLocalError in these cases.



                                              You could also save three lines and skip a few comparisons by doing this:



                                              def classify(value):
                                              endpts = [-0.95, -0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]
                                              ts_fol = [ None, r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7', r'-0.6', r'-0.5', r'-0.4', r'-0.3', r'-0.2', r'-0.1', r'.0', r'.1', r'.2', r'.3', r'.4', r'.5', r'.6', r'.7', r'.8', r'.9']
                                              return next((ts for ts, end in zip(ts_fol, endpts) if value < end), None)


                                              This version returns None rather than raising exceptions for any value outside the bounds.






                                              share|improve this answer




























                                                0












                                                0








                                                0







                                                Try something like this, if you don't like loops:



                                                def classify(value): 
                                                endpts = [-0.95, -0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]
                                                ts_folder = [ r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7', r'-0.6', r'-0.5', r'-0.4', r'-0.3', r'-0.2', r'-0.1', r'.0', r'.1', r'.2', r'.3', r'.4', r'.5', r'.6', r'.7', r'.8', r'.9']
                                                idx = [value >= end for end in endpts].index(False)
                                                if not idx:
                                                raise ValueError('Value outside of range')
                                                return ts_folder[idx-1]


                                                Of course, the loop is just "hidden" in the list comprehension.
                                                Obviously, in this example, it would be better to generate endpts and ts_fol programmatically rather than writing them all out, but you indicated that in the real situation the endpoints and values aren't so straightforward.



                                                This raises a ValueError if value ≥ 0.95 (because False is not found in the list comprehension) or if value < -0.95 (because then idx is 0); the original version raises a UnboundLocalError in these cases.



                                                You could also save three lines and skip a few comparisons by doing this:



                                                def classify(value):
                                                endpts = [-0.95, -0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]
                                                ts_fol = [ None, r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7', r'-0.6', r'-0.5', r'-0.4', r'-0.3', r'-0.2', r'-0.1', r'.0', r'.1', r'.2', r'.3', r'.4', r'.5', r'.6', r'.7', r'.8', r'.9']
                                                return next((ts for ts, end in zip(ts_fol, endpts) if value < end), None)


                                                This version returns None rather than raising exceptions for any value outside the bounds.






                                                share|improve this answer















                                                Try something like this, if you don't like loops:



                                                def classify(value): 
                                                endpts = [-0.95, -0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]
                                                ts_folder = [ r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7', r'-0.6', r'-0.5', r'-0.4', r'-0.3', r'-0.2', r'-0.1', r'.0', r'.1', r'.2', r'.3', r'.4', r'.5', r'.6', r'.7', r'.8', r'.9']
                                                idx = [value >= end for end in endpts].index(False)
                                                if not idx:
                                                raise ValueError('Value outside of range')
                                                return ts_folder[idx-1]


                                                Of course, the loop is just "hidden" in the list comprehension.
                                                Obviously, in this example, it would be better to generate endpts and ts_fol programmatically rather than writing them all out, but you indicated that in the real situation the endpoints and values aren't so straightforward.



                                                This raises a ValueError if value ≥ 0.95 (because False is not found in the list comprehension) or if value < -0.95 (because then idx is 0); the original version raises a UnboundLocalError in these cases.



                                                You could also save three lines and skip a few comparisons by doing this:



                                                def classify(value):
                                                endpts = [-0.95, -0.85, -0.75, -0.65, -0.55, -0.45, -0.35, -0.25, -0.15, -0.05, 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95]
                                                ts_fol = [ None, r'-0.9', r'-0.8', r'-0.7', r'-0.6', r'-0.5', r'-0.4', r'-0.3', r'-0.2', r'-0.1', r'.0', r'.1', r'.2', r'.3', r'.4', r'.5', r'.6', r'.7', r'.8', r'.9']
                                                return next((ts for ts, end in zip(ts_fol, endpts) if value < end), None)


                                                This version returns None rather than raising exceptions for any value outside the bounds.







                                                share|improve this answer














                                                share|improve this answer



                                                share|improve this answer








                                                edited Mar 15 at 22:10

























                                                answered Mar 15 at 21:00









                                                KundorKundor

                                                2,9661325




                                                2,9661325






























                                                    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.




                                                    draft saved


                                                    draft discarded














                                                    StackExchange.ready(
                                                    function () {
                                                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55180829%2fpython-if-else-code-style-for-reduced-code-for-rounding-floats%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

                                                    Fairchild Swearingen Metro Inhaltsverzeichnis Geschichte | Innenausstattung | Nutzung | Zwischenfälle...

                                                    Pilgersdorf Inhaltsverzeichnis Geografie | Geschichte | Bevölkerungsentwicklung | Politik | Kultur...

                                                    Marineschifffahrtleitung Inhaltsverzeichnis Geschichte | Heutige Organisation der NATO | Nationale und...