Python “triplet” dictionary?How to merge two dictionaries in a single expression?Calling an external...

get exit status from system() call

What is the strongest case that can be made in favour of the UK regaining some control over fishing policy after Brexit?

Why do Ichisongas hate elephants and hippos?

What are the spoon bit of a spoon and fork bit of a fork called?

How to stop co-workers from teasing me because I know Russian?

How to creep the reader out with what seems like a normal person?

Why is current rating for multicore cable lower than single core with the same cross section?

A non-technological, repeating, visible object in the sky, holding its position in the sky for hours

Toggle Overlays shortcut?

What does "rf" mean in "rfkill"?

Examples of non trivial equivalence relations , I mean equivalence relations without the expression " same ... as" in their definition?

Is there a way to get a compiler for the original B programming language?

What was the "glowing package" Pym was expecting?

Reverse the word in a string with the same order in javascript

Lock in SQL Server and Oracle

Is creating your own "experiment" considered cheating during a physics exam?

How can the Zone of Truth spell be defeated without the caster knowing?

Modify locally tikzset

Has any spacecraft ever had the ability to directly communicate with civilian air traffic control?

Can fracking help reduce CO2?

Subtleties of choosing the sequence of tenses in Russian

How to verbalise code in Mathematica?

Binary Numbers Magic Trick

Illegal assignment from SObject to Contact



Python “triplet” dictionary?


How to merge two dictionaries in a single expression?Calling an external command in PythonWhat are metaclasses in Python?How can I safely create a nested directory in Python?Does Python have a ternary conditional operator?How do I sort a dictionary by value?Add new keys to a dictionary?Check if a given key already exists in a dictionaryIterating over dictionaries using 'for' loopsDoes Python have a string 'contains' substring method?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}







6















If we have (a1, b1) and (a2, b2) it's easy to use a dictionary to store the correspondences:



dict[a1] = b1
dict[a2] = b2


And we can get (a1, b1) and (a2, b2) back no problem.



But, if we have (a1, b1, c1) and (a2, b2, c2), is it possible to get something like:



dict[a1] = (b1, c1)
dict[b1] = (a1, c1)


Where we can use either a1 or b1 to get the triplet (a1, b1, c2) back? Does that make sense? I'm not quite sure which datatype to use for this problem. The above would work but there would be duplicate data.



Basically, if I have a triplet, which data type could I use such that I can use either the first or second value to get the triplet back?










share|improve this question


















  • 1





    You want to be able to recover the triplet from any of the elements?

    – Olivier Melançon
    4 hours ago











  • @OlivierMelançon For my specific problem, if I have a1, I'd like to know b1 and c1. And if I only have b1, I'd need to know a1 and c1. But I'd never have c1 directly... If that makes sense.

    – Justin
    4 hours ago








  • 1





    perfect time to learn how to make your own data types. see docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#typesmapping

    – user633183
    4 hours ago








  • 1





    Quick hint: you would either need a custom mapping type (e.g. a dict subclass with __getitem__ overridden, at the very least) or you would need some custom container type that can wrap each item of your tuples and the tuples themselves such that they have the same __hash__. I suspect you might have an X-Y problem though but hard to be sure.

    – Iguananaut
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    I think it's an interesting problem. The answers given below are the most obvious but if you wanted to completely avoid duplication you'd have to do some tricks with hashes. I have to say, while it's a neat idea, in 25 years of programming I have never needed a data structure quite like this which is why I suspect an X-Y problem, but who knows stranger things have happened.

    – Iguananaut
    3 hours ago


















6















If we have (a1, b1) and (a2, b2) it's easy to use a dictionary to store the correspondences:



dict[a1] = b1
dict[a2] = b2


And we can get (a1, b1) and (a2, b2) back no problem.



But, if we have (a1, b1, c1) and (a2, b2, c2), is it possible to get something like:



dict[a1] = (b1, c1)
dict[b1] = (a1, c1)


Where we can use either a1 or b1 to get the triplet (a1, b1, c2) back? Does that make sense? I'm not quite sure which datatype to use for this problem. The above would work but there would be duplicate data.



Basically, if I have a triplet, which data type could I use such that I can use either the first or second value to get the triplet back?










share|improve this question


















  • 1





    You want to be able to recover the triplet from any of the elements?

    – Olivier Melançon
    4 hours ago











  • @OlivierMelançon For my specific problem, if I have a1, I'd like to know b1 and c1. And if I only have b1, I'd need to know a1 and c1. But I'd never have c1 directly... If that makes sense.

    – Justin
    4 hours ago








  • 1





    perfect time to learn how to make your own data types. see docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#typesmapping

    – user633183
    4 hours ago








  • 1





    Quick hint: you would either need a custom mapping type (e.g. a dict subclass with __getitem__ overridden, at the very least) or you would need some custom container type that can wrap each item of your tuples and the tuples themselves such that they have the same __hash__. I suspect you might have an X-Y problem though but hard to be sure.

    – Iguananaut
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    I think it's an interesting problem. The answers given below are the most obvious but if you wanted to completely avoid duplication you'd have to do some tricks with hashes. I have to say, while it's a neat idea, in 25 years of programming I have never needed a data structure quite like this which is why I suspect an X-Y problem, but who knows stranger things have happened.

    – Iguananaut
    3 hours ago














6












6








6


1






If we have (a1, b1) and (a2, b2) it's easy to use a dictionary to store the correspondences:



dict[a1] = b1
dict[a2] = b2


And we can get (a1, b1) and (a2, b2) back no problem.



But, if we have (a1, b1, c1) and (a2, b2, c2), is it possible to get something like:



dict[a1] = (b1, c1)
dict[b1] = (a1, c1)


Where we can use either a1 or b1 to get the triplet (a1, b1, c2) back? Does that make sense? I'm not quite sure which datatype to use for this problem. The above would work but there would be duplicate data.



Basically, if I have a triplet, which data type could I use such that I can use either the first or second value to get the triplet back?










share|improve this question














If we have (a1, b1) and (a2, b2) it's easy to use a dictionary to store the correspondences:



dict[a1] = b1
dict[a2] = b2


And we can get (a1, b1) and (a2, b2) back no problem.



But, if we have (a1, b1, c1) and (a2, b2, c2), is it possible to get something like:



dict[a1] = (b1, c1)
dict[b1] = (a1, c1)


Where we can use either a1 or b1 to get the triplet (a1, b1, c2) back? Does that make sense? I'm not quite sure which datatype to use for this problem. The above would work but there would be duplicate data.



Basically, if I have a triplet, which data type could I use such that I can use either the first or second value to get the triplet back?







python






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 4 hours ago









JustinJustin

3,26422549




3,26422549








  • 1





    You want to be able to recover the triplet from any of the elements?

    – Olivier Melançon
    4 hours ago











  • @OlivierMelançon For my specific problem, if I have a1, I'd like to know b1 and c1. And if I only have b1, I'd need to know a1 and c1. But I'd never have c1 directly... If that makes sense.

    – Justin
    4 hours ago








  • 1





    perfect time to learn how to make your own data types. see docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#typesmapping

    – user633183
    4 hours ago








  • 1





    Quick hint: you would either need a custom mapping type (e.g. a dict subclass with __getitem__ overridden, at the very least) or you would need some custom container type that can wrap each item of your tuples and the tuples themselves such that they have the same __hash__. I suspect you might have an X-Y problem though but hard to be sure.

    – Iguananaut
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    I think it's an interesting problem. The answers given below are the most obvious but if you wanted to completely avoid duplication you'd have to do some tricks with hashes. I have to say, while it's a neat idea, in 25 years of programming I have never needed a data structure quite like this which is why I suspect an X-Y problem, but who knows stranger things have happened.

    – Iguananaut
    3 hours ago














  • 1





    You want to be able to recover the triplet from any of the elements?

    – Olivier Melançon
    4 hours ago











  • @OlivierMelançon For my specific problem, if I have a1, I'd like to know b1 and c1. And if I only have b1, I'd need to know a1 and c1. But I'd never have c1 directly... If that makes sense.

    – Justin
    4 hours ago








  • 1





    perfect time to learn how to make your own data types. see docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#typesmapping

    – user633183
    4 hours ago








  • 1





    Quick hint: you would either need a custom mapping type (e.g. a dict subclass with __getitem__ overridden, at the very least) or you would need some custom container type that can wrap each item of your tuples and the tuples themselves such that they have the same __hash__. I suspect you might have an X-Y problem though but hard to be sure.

    – Iguananaut
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    I think it's an interesting problem. The answers given below are the most obvious but if you wanted to completely avoid duplication you'd have to do some tricks with hashes. I have to say, while it's a neat idea, in 25 years of programming I have never needed a data structure quite like this which is why I suspect an X-Y problem, but who knows stranger things have happened.

    – Iguananaut
    3 hours ago








1




1





You want to be able to recover the triplet from any of the elements?

– Olivier Melançon
4 hours ago





You want to be able to recover the triplet from any of the elements?

– Olivier Melançon
4 hours ago













@OlivierMelançon For my specific problem, if I have a1, I'd like to know b1 and c1. And if I only have b1, I'd need to know a1 and c1. But I'd never have c1 directly... If that makes sense.

– Justin
4 hours ago







@OlivierMelançon For my specific problem, if I have a1, I'd like to know b1 and c1. And if I only have b1, I'd need to know a1 and c1. But I'd never have c1 directly... If that makes sense.

– Justin
4 hours ago






1




1





perfect time to learn how to make your own data types. see docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#typesmapping

– user633183
4 hours ago







perfect time to learn how to make your own data types. see docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#typesmapping

– user633183
4 hours ago






1




1





Quick hint: you would either need a custom mapping type (e.g. a dict subclass with __getitem__ overridden, at the very least) or you would need some custom container type that can wrap each item of your tuples and the tuples themselves such that they have the same __hash__. I suspect you might have an X-Y problem though but hard to be sure.

– Iguananaut
4 hours ago





Quick hint: you would either need a custom mapping type (e.g. a dict subclass with __getitem__ overridden, at the very least) or you would need some custom container type that can wrap each item of your tuples and the tuples themselves such that they have the same __hash__. I suspect you might have an X-Y problem though but hard to be sure.

– Iguananaut
4 hours ago




2




2





I think it's an interesting problem. The answers given below are the most obvious but if you wanted to completely avoid duplication you'd have to do some tricks with hashes. I have to say, while it's a neat idea, in 25 years of programming I have never needed a data structure quite like this which is why I suspect an X-Y problem, but who knows stranger things have happened.

– Iguananaut
3 hours ago





I think it's an interesting problem. The answers given below are the most obvious but if you wanted to completely avoid duplication you'd have to do some tricks with hashes. I have to say, while it's a neat idea, in 25 years of programming I have never needed a data structure quite like this which is why I suspect an X-Y problem, but who knows stranger things have happened.

– Iguananaut
3 hours ago












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















4














Solution



You can write your own mapping data-structure which allows to add triples, or groups of any size, and recover the group with __getitem__.



class GroupMap:
def __init__(self):
self.data = {}

def add(self, group):
for item in group:
self.data[item] = group

def __getitem__(self, item):
return self.data[item]

group = (1, 2, 3)
group_map = GroupMap()

group_map.add(group)

print(group_map[1]) # (1, 2, 3)


Notice that this GroupMap can be used for groups of any size, not only triples.



The next step in the above would be to extend the class to avoid collisions according to the behaviour you want when a collision occurs.



Theory



You might wonder if there is a better way to represent groups of connected objects. The answer is not really.



Suppose you have a graph containing n vertices. Then for the graph to be connected, you must have at least n - 1 edges. In the above data-structure, I used n entry in the dict, meaning the solution is nearly optimal.



Why not use n - 1 entries if it can be done? Because you would then need to traverse all your graph to recover the whole group. Thus using one more edge allows for O(1) lookup, which is a trade-off you probably want to take.






share|improve this answer


























  • Wouldn't this still duplicate the information in the same way?

    – GiraffeMan91
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    @GiraffeMan91 Yes, but there is no other way. A connexion between two items must be stored one way of another. Another way to visualize this is that a graph of n items must have at least (n-1) vertices to be connected. Here I use two more than that, but this is to allow fast lookup.

    – Olivier Melançon
    4 hours ago













  • Yea I understand I just wanted to be clear that we agreed. I thought the primary element of the question was to reduce duplication which I don't believe can be done either, I just thought your answer turned what the post already said they could do into a class with methods, which is written nicely, but I felt the post already explained they knew how to do what your answer provided and they were looking for other methods.

    – GiraffeMan91
    3 hours ago











  • @GiraffeMan91 Fair point, I edited the answer to explain why we cannot do better than that.

    – Olivier Melançon
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @GiraffeMan91 The problem I see with traversal is that it requires implementing some kind of graph data-structure which 1) slows down everything and 2) is a bit overly complex in my opinion for what we want to achieve.

    – Olivier Melançon
    3 hours ago



















2














An alternative if you want to subclass dict (to get all other methods associated with dict like .get and whatnot) and only get the other elements when asked (for some reason). You can make a new dictionary that is all your own



class TupleDict(dict):

def __setitem__(self, key, value):
assert isinstance(key, tuple)
for i, e in enumerate(key):
dict.__setitem__(self, e, key[:i] + key[i+1:] + (value,))
dict.__setitem__(self, value, key)


and then assign any key that is a tuple to a single value (not sure I like this syntax, but we can make it different or use a stand-alone method)



d = TriDict()
d[(1,2)] = 4


and you will have the result of __getitem__ return the rest of the tuple not present.



>>> print(d[1])
(2, 4)
>>> print(d[2])
(1, 4)
print(d[4])
>>> (1, 2)





share|improve this answer

































    0














    Dictionaries can store key value pairs only.



    You could make your own triplet dictionary however using operator overloading so that when you index with any member of the triplets you get back the other two, maybe something like this:



    class trictionary:
    def __init__(self):
    self.data = []

    def add(self, group):
    self.data.append(group)

    def __getitem__(self, key):
    for group in data: #Find the set the key belongs to.
    if key in group:
    return tuple(group)


    This avoids replicating the data and has the functionality you're looking for at the expense of performance. There may be a better way of doing the same.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      I love "trictionary"

      – modesitt
      3 hours ago













    • That was probably the part of my answer with the most merit...

      – Eden Trainor
      3 hours ago



















    0














    Building on Olivier Melançons answer, I came up with this - in case the position of the value in the tuple matters:



    class GroupMap:
    def __init__(self, data=None):
    self.data = {}
    if data:
    self.add(data)

    def add(self, data):
    for idx, key in enumerate(data):
    self.data.setdefault(idx, {})[key] = data

    def __getitem__(self, key):
    # lookup in first index
    return self.getby(0, key)

    def getby(self, idx, key):
    return self.data[idx].get(key)


    data = ('a', 'b', 'c')
    g = GroupMap(data)
    more_data = ('b', 'a', 'z')
    g.add(more_data)

    assert g['a'] == data

    assert g.getby(0, 'a') == data
    assert g.getby(0, 'b') == more_data
    assert g.getby(0, 'c') is None

    assert g.getby(1, 'a') == more_data
    assert g.getby(1, 'b') == data

    assert g.getby(2, 'c') == data
    assert g.getby(2, 'z') == more_data

    assert id(data) == id(g['a']) == id(g.getby(1, 'b'))





    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%2f55892600%2fpython-triplet-dictionary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      4














      Solution



      You can write your own mapping data-structure which allows to add triples, or groups of any size, and recover the group with __getitem__.



      class GroupMap:
      def __init__(self):
      self.data = {}

      def add(self, group):
      for item in group:
      self.data[item] = group

      def __getitem__(self, item):
      return self.data[item]

      group = (1, 2, 3)
      group_map = GroupMap()

      group_map.add(group)

      print(group_map[1]) # (1, 2, 3)


      Notice that this GroupMap can be used for groups of any size, not only triples.



      The next step in the above would be to extend the class to avoid collisions according to the behaviour you want when a collision occurs.



      Theory



      You might wonder if there is a better way to represent groups of connected objects. The answer is not really.



      Suppose you have a graph containing n vertices. Then for the graph to be connected, you must have at least n - 1 edges. In the above data-structure, I used n entry in the dict, meaning the solution is nearly optimal.



      Why not use n - 1 entries if it can be done? Because you would then need to traverse all your graph to recover the whole group. Thus using one more edge allows for O(1) lookup, which is a trade-off you probably want to take.






      share|improve this answer


























      • Wouldn't this still duplicate the information in the same way?

        – GiraffeMan91
        4 hours ago






      • 1





        @GiraffeMan91 Yes, but there is no other way. A connexion between two items must be stored one way of another. Another way to visualize this is that a graph of n items must have at least (n-1) vertices to be connected. Here I use two more than that, but this is to allow fast lookup.

        – Olivier Melançon
        4 hours ago













      • Yea I understand I just wanted to be clear that we agreed. I thought the primary element of the question was to reduce duplication which I don't believe can be done either, I just thought your answer turned what the post already said they could do into a class with methods, which is written nicely, but I felt the post already explained they knew how to do what your answer provided and they were looking for other methods.

        – GiraffeMan91
        3 hours ago











      • @GiraffeMan91 Fair point, I edited the answer to explain why we cannot do better than that.

        – Olivier Melançon
        3 hours ago






      • 1





        @GiraffeMan91 The problem I see with traversal is that it requires implementing some kind of graph data-structure which 1) slows down everything and 2) is a bit overly complex in my opinion for what we want to achieve.

        – Olivier Melançon
        3 hours ago
















      4














      Solution



      You can write your own mapping data-structure which allows to add triples, or groups of any size, and recover the group with __getitem__.



      class GroupMap:
      def __init__(self):
      self.data = {}

      def add(self, group):
      for item in group:
      self.data[item] = group

      def __getitem__(self, item):
      return self.data[item]

      group = (1, 2, 3)
      group_map = GroupMap()

      group_map.add(group)

      print(group_map[1]) # (1, 2, 3)


      Notice that this GroupMap can be used for groups of any size, not only triples.



      The next step in the above would be to extend the class to avoid collisions according to the behaviour you want when a collision occurs.



      Theory



      You might wonder if there is a better way to represent groups of connected objects. The answer is not really.



      Suppose you have a graph containing n vertices. Then for the graph to be connected, you must have at least n - 1 edges. In the above data-structure, I used n entry in the dict, meaning the solution is nearly optimal.



      Why not use n - 1 entries if it can be done? Because you would then need to traverse all your graph to recover the whole group. Thus using one more edge allows for O(1) lookup, which is a trade-off you probably want to take.






      share|improve this answer


























      • Wouldn't this still duplicate the information in the same way?

        – GiraffeMan91
        4 hours ago






      • 1





        @GiraffeMan91 Yes, but there is no other way. A connexion between two items must be stored one way of another. Another way to visualize this is that a graph of n items must have at least (n-1) vertices to be connected. Here I use two more than that, but this is to allow fast lookup.

        – Olivier Melançon
        4 hours ago













      • Yea I understand I just wanted to be clear that we agreed. I thought the primary element of the question was to reduce duplication which I don't believe can be done either, I just thought your answer turned what the post already said they could do into a class with methods, which is written nicely, but I felt the post already explained they knew how to do what your answer provided and they were looking for other methods.

        – GiraffeMan91
        3 hours ago











      • @GiraffeMan91 Fair point, I edited the answer to explain why we cannot do better than that.

        – Olivier Melançon
        3 hours ago






      • 1





        @GiraffeMan91 The problem I see with traversal is that it requires implementing some kind of graph data-structure which 1) slows down everything and 2) is a bit overly complex in my opinion for what we want to achieve.

        – Olivier Melançon
        3 hours ago














      4












      4








      4







      Solution



      You can write your own mapping data-structure which allows to add triples, or groups of any size, and recover the group with __getitem__.



      class GroupMap:
      def __init__(self):
      self.data = {}

      def add(self, group):
      for item in group:
      self.data[item] = group

      def __getitem__(self, item):
      return self.data[item]

      group = (1, 2, 3)
      group_map = GroupMap()

      group_map.add(group)

      print(group_map[1]) # (1, 2, 3)


      Notice that this GroupMap can be used for groups of any size, not only triples.



      The next step in the above would be to extend the class to avoid collisions according to the behaviour you want when a collision occurs.



      Theory



      You might wonder if there is a better way to represent groups of connected objects. The answer is not really.



      Suppose you have a graph containing n vertices. Then for the graph to be connected, you must have at least n - 1 edges. In the above data-structure, I used n entry in the dict, meaning the solution is nearly optimal.



      Why not use n - 1 entries if it can be done? Because you would then need to traverse all your graph to recover the whole group. Thus using one more edge allows for O(1) lookup, which is a trade-off you probably want to take.






      share|improve this answer















      Solution



      You can write your own mapping data-structure which allows to add triples, or groups of any size, and recover the group with __getitem__.



      class GroupMap:
      def __init__(self):
      self.data = {}

      def add(self, group):
      for item in group:
      self.data[item] = group

      def __getitem__(self, item):
      return self.data[item]

      group = (1, 2, 3)
      group_map = GroupMap()

      group_map.add(group)

      print(group_map[1]) # (1, 2, 3)


      Notice that this GroupMap can be used for groups of any size, not only triples.



      The next step in the above would be to extend the class to avoid collisions according to the behaviour you want when a collision occurs.



      Theory



      You might wonder if there is a better way to represent groups of connected objects. The answer is not really.



      Suppose you have a graph containing n vertices. Then for the graph to be connected, you must have at least n - 1 edges. In the above data-structure, I used n entry in the dict, meaning the solution is nearly optimal.



      Why not use n - 1 entries if it can be done? Because you would then need to traverse all your graph to recover the whole group. Thus using one more edge allows for O(1) lookup, which is a trade-off you probably want to take.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 3 hours ago

























      answered 4 hours ago









      Olivier MelançonOlivier Melançon

      14.4k32142




      14.4k32142













      • Wouldn't this still duplicate the information in the same way?

        – GiraffeMan91
        4 hours ago






      • 1





        @GiraffeMan91 Yes, but there is no other way. A connexion between two items must be stored one way of another. Another way to visualize this is that a graph of n items must have at least (n-1) vertices to be connected. Here I use two more than that, but this is to allow fast lookup.

        – Olivier Melançon
        4 hours ago













      • Yea I understand I just wanted to be clear that we agreed. I thought the primary element of the question was to reduce duplication which I don't believe can be done either, I just thought your answer turned what the post already said they could do into a class with methods, which is written nicely, but I felt the post already explained they knew how to do what your answer provided and they were looking for other methods.

        – GiraffeMan91
        3 hours ago











      • @GiraffeMan91 Fair point, I edited the answer to explain why we cannot do better than that.

        – Olivier Melançon
        3 hours ago






      • 1





        @GiraffeMan91 The problem I see with traversal is that it requires implementing some kind of graph data-structure which 1) slows down everything and 2) is a bit overly complex in my opinion for what we want to achieve.

        – Olivier Melançon
        3 hours ago



















      • Wouldn't this still duplicate the information in the same way?

        – GiraffeMan91
        4 hours ago






      • 1





        @GiraffeMan91 Yes, but there is no other way. A connexion between two items must be stored one way of another. Another way to visualize this is that a graph of n items must have at least (n-1) vertices to be connected. Here I use two more than that, but this is to allow fast lookup.

        – Olivier Melançon
        4 hours ago













      • Yea I understand I just wanted to be clear that we agreed. I thought the primary element of the question was to reduce duplication which I don't believe can be done either, I just thought your answer turned what the post already said they could do into a class with methods, which is written nicely, but I felt the post already explained they knew how to do what your answer provided and they were looking for other methods.

        – GiraffeMan91
        3 hours ago











      • @GiraffeMan91 Fair point, I edited the answer to explain why we cannot do better than that.

        – Olivier Melançon
        3 hours ago






      • 1





        @GiraffeMan91 The problem I see with traversal is that it requires implementing some kind of graph data-structure which 1) slows down everything and 2) is a bit overly complex in my opinion for what we want to achieve.

        – Olivier Melançon
        3 hours ago

















      Wouldn't this still duplicate the information in the same way?

      – GiraffeMan91
      4 hours ago





      Wouldn't this still duplicate the information in the same way?

      – GiraffeMan91
      4 hours ago




      1




      1





      @GiraffeMan91 Yes, but there is no other way. A connexion between two items must be stored one way of another. Another way to visualize this is that a graph of n items must have at least (n-1) vertices to be connected. Here I use two more than that, but this is to allow fast lookup.

      – Olivier Melançon
      4 hours ago







      @GiraffeMan91 Yes, but there is no other way. A connexion between two items must be stored one way of another. Another way to visualize this is that a graph of n items must have at least (n-1) vertices to be connected. Here I use two more than that, but this is to allow fast lookup.

      – Olivier Melançon
      4 hours ago















      Yea I understand I just wanted to be clear that we agreed. I thought the primary element of the question was to reduce duplication which I don't believe can be done either, I just thought your answer turned what the post already said they could do into a class with methods, which is written nicely, but I felt the post already explained they knew how to do what your answer provided and they were looking for other methods.

      – GiraffeMan91
      3 hours ago





      Yea I understand I just wanted to be clear that we agreed. I thought the primary element of the question was to reduce duplication which I don't believe can be done either, I just thought your answer turned what the post already said they could do into a class with methods, which is written nicely, but I felt the post already explained they knew how to do what your answer provided and they were looking for other methods.

      – GiraffeMan91
      3 hours ago













      @GiraffeMan91 Fair point, I edited the answer to explain why we cannot do better than that.

      – Olivier Melançon
      3 hours ago





      @GiraffeMan91 Fair point, I edited the answer to explain why we cannot do better than that.

      – Olivier Melançon
      3 hours ago




      1




      1





      @GiraffeMan91 The problem I see with traversal is that it requires implementing some kind of graph data-structure which 1) slows down everything and 2) is a bit overly complex in my opinion for what we want to achieve.

      – Olivier Melançon
      3 hours ago





      @GiraffeMan91 The problem I see with traversal is that it requires implementing some kind of graph data-structure which 1) slows down everything and 2) is a bit overly complex in my opinion for what we want to achieve.

      – Olivier Melançon
      3 hours ago













      2














      An alternative if you want to subclass dict (to get all other methods associated with dict like .get and whatnot) and only get the other elements when asked (for some reason). You can make a new dictionary that is all your own



      class TupleDict(dict):

      def __setitem__(self, key, value):
      assert isinstance(key, tuple)
      for i, e in enumerate(key):
      dict.__setitem__(self, e, key[:i] + key[i+1:] + (value,))
      dict.__setitem__(self, value, key)


      and then assign any key that is a tuple to a single value (not sure I like this syntax, but we can make it different or use a stand-alone method)



      d = TriDict()
      d[(1,2)] = 4


      and you will have the result of __getitem__ return the rest of the tuple not present.



      >>> print(d[1])
      (2, 4)
      >>> print(d[2])
      (1, 4)
      print(d[4])
      >>> (1, 2)





      share|improve this answer






























        2














        An alternative if you want to subclass dict (to get all other methods associated with dict like .get and whatnot) and only get the other elements when asked (for some reason). You can make a new dictionary that is all your own



        class TupleDict(dict):

        def __setitem__(self, key, value):
        assert isinstance(key, tuple)
        for i, e in enumerate(key):
        dict.__setitem__(self, e, key[:i] + key[i+1:] + (value,))
        dict.__setitem__(self, value, key)


        and then assign any key that is a tuple to a single value (not sure I like this syntax, but we can make it different or use a stand-alone method)



        d = TriDict()
        d[(1,2)] = 4


        and you will have the result of __getitem__ return the rest of the tuple not present.



        >>> print(d[1])
        (2, 4)
        >>> print(d[2])
        (1, 4)
        print(d[4])
        >>> (1, 2)





        share|improve this answer




























          2












          2








          2







          An alternative if you want to subclass dict (to get all other methods associated with dict like .get and whatnot) and only get the other elements when asked (for some reason). You can make a new dictionary that is all your own



          class TupleDict(dict):

          def __setitem__(self, key, value):
          assert isinstance(key, tuple)
          for i, e in enumerate(key):
          dict.__setitem__(self, e, key[:i] + key[i+1:] + (value,))
          dict.__setitem__(self, value, key)


          and then assign any key that is a tuple to a single value (not sure I like this syntax, but we can make it different or use a stand-alone method)



          d = TriDict()
          d[(1,2)] = 4


          and you will have the result of __getitem__ return the rest of the tuple not present.



          >>> print(d[1])
          (2, 4)
          >>> print(d[2])
          (1, 4)
          print(d[4])
          >>> (1, 2)





          share|improve this answer















          An alternative if you want to subclass dict (to get all other methods associated with dict like .get and whatnot) and only get the other elements when asked (for some reason). You can make a new dictionary that is all your own



          class TupleDict(dict):

          def __setitem__(self, key, value):
          assert isinstance(key, tuple)
          for i, e in enumerate(key):
          dict.__setitem__(self, e, key[:i] + key[i+1:] + (value,))
          dict.__setitem__(self, value, key)


          and then assign any key that is a tuple to a single value (not sure I like this syntax, but we can make it different or use a stand-alone method)



          d = TriDict()
          d[(1,2)] = 4


          and you will have the result of __getitem__ return the rest of the tuple not present.



          >>> print(d[1])
          (2, 4)
          >>> print(d[2])
          (1, 4)
          print(d[4])
          >>> (1, 2)






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 3 hours ago

























          answered 4 hours ago









          modesittmodesitt

          3,03121745




          3,03121745























              0














              Dictionaries can store key value pairs only.



              You could make your own triplet dictionary however using operator overloading so that when you index with any member of the triplets you get back the other two, maybe something like this:



              class trictionary:
              def __init__(self):
              self.data = []

              def add(self, group):
              self.data.append(group)

              def __getitem__(self, key):
              for group in data: #Find the set the key belongs to.
              if key in group:
              return tuple(group)


              This avoids replicating the data and has the functionality you're looking for at the expense of performance. There may be a better way of doing the same.






              share|improve this answer



















              • 1





                I love "trictionary"

                – modesitt
                3 hours ago













              • That was probably the part of my answer with the most merit...

                – Eden Trainor
                3 hours ago
















              0














              Dictionaries can store key value pairs only.



              You could make your own triplet dictionary however using operator overloading so that when you index with any member of the triplets you get back the other two, maybe something like this:



              class trictionary:
              def __init__(self):
              self.data = []

              def add(self, group):
              self.data.append(group)

              def __getitem__(self, key):
              for group in data: #Find the set the key belongs to.
              if key in group:
              return tuple(group)


              This avoids replicating the data and has the functionality you're looking for at the expense of performance. There may be a better way of doing the same.






              share|improve this answer



















              • 1





                I love "trictionary"

                – modesitt
                3 hours ago













              • That was probably the part of my answer with the most merit...

                – Eden Trainor
                3 hours ago














              0












              0








              0







              Dictionaries can store key value pairs only.



              You could make your own triplet dictionary however using operator overloading so that when you index with any member of the triplets you get back the other two, maybe something like this:



              class trictionary:
              def __init__(self):
              self.data = []

              def add(self, group):
              self.data.append(group)

              def __getitem__(self, key):
              for group in data: #Find the set the key belongs to.
              if key in group:
              return tuple(group)


              This avoids replicating the data and has the functionality you're looking for at the expense of performance. There may be a better way of doing the same.






              share|improve this answer













              Dictionaries can store key value pairs only.



              You could make your own triplet dictionary however using operator overloading so that when you index with any member of the triplets you get back the other two, maybe something like this:



              class trictionary:
              def __init__(self):
              self.data = []

              def add(self, group):
              self.data.append(group)

              def __getitem__(self, key):
              for group in data: #Find the set the key belongs to.
              if key in group:
              return tuple(group)


              This avoids replicating the data and has the functionality you're looking for at the expense of performance. There may be a better way of doing the same.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 3 hours ago









              Eden TrainorEden Trainor

              246




              246








              • 1





                I love "trictionary"

                – modesitt
                3 hours ago













              • That was probably the part of my answer with the most merit...

                – Eden Trainor
                3 hours ago














              • 1





                I love "trictionary"

                – modesitt
                3 hours ago













              • That was probably the part of my answer with the most merit...

                – Eden Trainor
                3 hours ago








              1




              1





              I love "trictionary"

              – modesitt
              3 hours ago







              I love "trictionary"

              – modesitt
              3 hours ago















              That was probably the part of my answer with the most merit...

              – Eden Trainor
              3 hours ago





              That was probably the part of my answer with the most merit...

              – Eden Trainor
              3 hours ago











              0














              Building on Olivier Melançons answer, I came up with this - in case the position of the value in the tuple matters:



              class GroupMap:
              def __init__(self, data=None):
              self.data = {}
              if data:
              self.add(data)

              def add(self, data):
              for idx, key in enumerate(data):
              self.data.setdefault(idx, {})[key] = data

              def __getitem__(self, key):
              # lookup in first index
              return self.getby(0, key)

              def getby(self, idx, key):
              return self.data[idx].get(key)


              data = ('a', 'b', 'c')
              g = GroupMap(data)
              more_data = ('b', 'a', 'z')
              g.add(more_data)

              assert g['a'] == data

              assert g.getby(0, 'a') == data
              assert g.getby(0, 'b') == more_data
              assert g.getby(0, 'c') is None

              assert g.getby(1, 'a') == more_data
              assert g.getby(1, 'b') == data

              assert g.getby(2, 'c') == data
              assert g.getby(2, 'z') == more_data

              assert id(data) == id(g['a']) == id(g.getby(1, 'b'))





              share|improve this answer




























                0














                Building on Olivier Melançons answer, I came up with this - in case the position of the value in the tuple matters:



                class GroupMap:
                def __init__(self, data=None):
                self.data = {}
                if data:
                self.add(data)

                def add(self, data):
                for idx, key in enumerate(data):
                self.data.setdefault(idx, {})[key] = data

                def __getitem__(self, key):
                # lookup in first index
                return self.getby(0, key)

                def getby(self, idx, key):
                return self.data[idx].get(key)


                data = ('a', 'b', 'c')
                g = GroupMap(data)
                more_data = ('b', 'a', 'z')
                g.add(more_data)

                assert g['a'] == data

                assert g.getby(0, 'a') == data
                assert g.getby(0, 'b') == more_data
                assert g.getby(0, 'c') is None

                assert g.getby(1, 'a') == more_data
                assert g.getby(1, 'b') == data

                assert g.getby(2, 'c') == data
                assert g.getby(2, 'z') == more_data

                assert id(data) == id(g['a']) == id(g.getby(1, 'b'))





                share|improve this answer


























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  Building on Olivier Melançons answer, I came up with this - in case the position of the value in the tuple matters:



                  class GroupMap:
                  def __init__(self, data=None):
                  self.data = {}
                  if data:
                  self.add(data)

                  def add(self, data):
                  for idx, key in enumerate(data):
                  self.data.setdefault(idx, {})[key] = data

                  def __getitem__(self, key):
                  # lookup in first index
                  return self.getby(0, key)

                  def getby(self, idx, key):
                  return self.data[idx].get(key)


                  data = ('a', 'b', 'c')
                  g = GroupMap(data)
                  more_data = ('b', 'a', 'z')
                  g.add(more_data)

                  assert g['a'] == data

                  assert g.getby(0, 'a') == data
                  assert g.getby(0, 'b') == more_data
                  assert g.getby(0, 'c') is None

                  assert g.getby(1, 'a') == more_data
                  assert g.getby(1, 'b') == data

                  assert g.getby(2, 'c') == data
                  assert g.getby(2, 'z') == more_data

                  assert id(data) == id(g['a']) == id(g.getby(1, 'b'))





                  share|improve this answer













                  Building on Olivier Melançons answer, I came up with this - in case the position of the value in the tuple matters:



                  class GroupMap:
                  def __init__(self, data=None):
                  self.data = {}
                  if data:
                  self.add(data)

                  def add(self, data):
                  for idx, key in enumerate(data):
                  self.data.setdefault(idx, {})[key] = data

                  def __getitem__(self, key):
                  # lookup in first index
                  return self.getby(0, key)

                  def getby(self, idx, key):
                  return self.data[idx].get(key)


                  data = ('a', 'b', 'c')
                  g = GroupMap(data)
                  more_data = ('b', 'a', 'z')
                  g.add(more_data)

                  assert g['a'] == data

                  assert g.getby(0, 'a') == data
                  assert g.getby(0, 'b') == more_data
                  assert g.getby(0, 'c') is None

                  assert g.getby(1, 'a') == more_data
                  assert g.getby(1, 'b') == data

                  assert g.getby(2, 'c') == data
                  assert g.getby(2, 'z') == more_data

                  assert id(data) == id(g['a']) == id(g.getby(1, 'b'))






                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 2 hours ago









                  CloudomationCloudomation

                  882111




                  882111






























                      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%2f55892600%2fpython-triplet-dictionary%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

                      Installing LyX: “No textclass is found.”LyX installation error- text class not found- 'Reconfigure' or...

                      (1602) Indiana Índice Designación y nombre Características orbitales Véase...

                      Universidad Autónoma de Occidente Índice Historia Campus Facultades Programas Académicos Medios de...