When it is required to check if a variable is a tuple, the 'type' method can be used. A tuple is an immutable data type. It means, values once defined can't be changed by accessing their index elements. If we try to change the elements, it results in an error.
a_list = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] # Checks if the variable "a_list" is a list if type(a_list) == list: print("Variable is a list.") else: print("Variable is not a list.") This results in: "Variable is a list."
Python Find String in List using count() We can also use count() function to get the number of occurrences of a string in the list. If its output is 0, then it means that string is not present in the list.
To get the type of a variable in Python, you can use the built-in type() function. In Python, everything is an object. So, when you use the type() function to print the type of the value stored in a variable to the console, it returns the class type of the object.
if type(x) is list:
print 'a list'
elif type(x) is tuple:
print 'a tuple'
else:
print 'neither a tuple or a list'
Go ahead and use isinstance
if you need it. It is somewhat evil, as it excludes custom sequences, iterators, and other things that you might actually need. However, sometimes you need to behave differently if someone, for instance, passes a string. My preference there would be to explicitly check for str
or unicode
like so:
import types
isinstance(var, types.StringTypes)
N.B. Don't mistake types.StringType
for types.StringTypes
. The latter incorporates str
and unicode
objects.
The types
module is considered by many to be obsolete in favor of just checking directly against the object's type, so if you'd rather not use the above, you can alternatively check explicitly against str
and unicode
, like this:
isinstance(var, (str, unicode)):
Edit:
Better still is:
isinstance(var, basestring)
End edit
After either of these, you can fall back to behaving as if you're getting a normal sequence, letting non-sequences raise appropriate exceptions.
See the thing that's "evil" about type checking is not that you might want to behave differently for a certain type of object, it's that you artificially restrict your function from doing the right thing with unexpected object types that would otherwise do the right thing. If you have a final fallback that is not type-checked, you remove this restriction. It should be noted that too much type checking is a code smell that indicates that you might want to do some refactoring, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should avoid it from the getgo.
There's nothing wrong with using isinstance
as long as it's not redundant. If a variable should only be a list/tuple then document the interface and just use it as such. Otherwise a check is perfectly reasonable:
if isinstance(a, collections.Iterable):
# use as a container
else:
# not a container!
This type of check does have some good use-cases, such as with the standard string startswith / endswith methods (although to be accurate these are implemented in C in CPython using an explicit check to see if it's a tuple - there's more than one way to solve this problem, as mentioned in the article you link to).
An explicit check is often better than trying to use the object as a container and handling the exception - that can cause all sorts of problems with code being run partially or unnecessarily.
Document the argument as needing to be a sequence, and use it as a sequence. Don't check the type.
How about: hasattr(a, "__iter__")
?
It tells if the object returned can be iterated over as a generator. By default, tuples and lists can, but not the string types.
On Python 2.8 type(list) is list
returns false
I would suggest comparing the type in this horrible way:
if type(a) == type([]) :
print "variable a is a list"
(well at least on my system, using anaconda on Mac OS X Yosemite)
>>> l = []
>>> l.__class__.__name__ in ('list', 'tuple')
True
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With