In Python, how do I determine if an object is iterable?
Checking for
__iter__
works on sequence types, but it would fail on e.g. strings in Python 2. I would like to know the right answer too, until then, here is one possibility (which would work on strings, too):try:
some_object_iterator = iter(some_object)
except TypeError as te:
print(some_object, 'is not iterable')
The iter
built-in checks for the __iter__
method or in the case of strings the __getitem__
method.
- Another general pythonic approach is to assume an iterable, then fail gracefully if it does not work on the given object. The Python glossary:
Pythonic programming style that determines an object's type by inspection of its method or attribute signature rather than by explicit relationship to some type object ("If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.") By emphasizing interfaces rather than specific types, well-designed code improves its flexibility by allowing polymorphic substitution. Duck-typing avoids tests using type() or isinstance(). Instead, it typically employs the EAFP (Easier to Ask Forgiveness than Permission) style of programming.
...
try:
_ = (e for e in my_object)
except TypeError:
print my_object, 'is not iterable'
The
collections
module provides some abstract base classes, which allow to ask classes or instances if they provide particular functionality, for example:from collections.abc import Iterable
if isinstance(e, Iterable):
# e is iterable
However, this does not check for classes that are iterable through __getitem__
.
Checking whether something is iterable
The proper way to check for iterability is as follows:
function isIterable(obj) {
// checks for null and undefined
if (obj == null) {
return false;
}
return typeof obj[Symbol.iterator] === 'function';
}
Why this works (iterable protocol in depth): https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Iteration_protocols
Since we are talking about for..of, I assume, we are in ES6 mindset.
Also, don't be surprised that this function returns true
if obj
is a string, as strings iterate over their characters.
How can I check whether an object is iterable statically?
There is an Iterable
type that would do just that:
function fn(ary: Iterable<any>) {
for (let value of ary)
console.log(value)
}
Corresponding TypeScript playground here.
Note that Iterable
requires on type argument. any
allows you to specifically detect just if an object is iterable, although you could go further and specify on what you would like to iterate (eg. Iterable<Number>
).
Checking if a class is iterable
Checking if an object is iterable is correctly, as you've done, performed with:
isinstance(obj, collections.Iterable)
The problem here is you're supplying a class
to isinstance
and not an instance. It is False
because isinstance
will go ahead and check if type(fib)
has an __iter__
method defined:
type(fib).__iter__ # AttributeError
This of course, isn't the case. type(fib)
is type
which doesn't define an __iter__
method.
If you supply an instance to it, it correctly prints True
:
isinstance(fib(), Iterable) # True
because looking in type(fib())
it will find fib.__iter__
.
Alternatively, feeding fib
to issubclass
performs a similar check that, instead, takes a class as a first argument:
issubclass(fib, Iterable) # True
Two extra minor things to point out:
- Using
object
as an explicit base class is unnecessary in Python3
(though, if you're developing code that runs on both Py2 and Py3, it is a good thing. (See Python class inherits object for more on this.) - According to PEP 8, class names should follow the CapWords convention, so
fib
should ideally be namedFib
.
how to tell a variable is iterable but not a string
Use isinstance (I don't see why it's bad practice)
import types
if not isinstance(arg, types.StringTypes):
Note the use of StringTypes. It ensures that we don't forget about some obscure type of string.
On the upside, this also works for derived string classes.
class MyString(str):
pass
isinstance(MyString(" "), types.StringTypes) # true
Also, you might want to have a look at this previous question.
Cheers.
NB: behavior changed in Python 3 as StringTypes
and basestring
are no longer defined. Depending on your needs, you can replace them in isinstance
by str
, or a subset tuple of (str, bytes, unicode)
, e.g. for Cython users.
As @Theron Luhn mentionned, you can also use six
.
Check if object is iterable
You need to assign the result of match
to a variable, so you can test if the match succeeded before trying to use the capture groups.
const match = "string".match(/([^/]+)\/(.*)/);
if (match) {
const [, segment1, segment2] = match;
console.log(segment1, segment2);
}
How can I check if an object is an iterator in Python?
In Python 2.6 or better, the designed-in idiom for such behavioral checks is a "membership check" with the abstract base class in the collections
module of the standard library:
>>> import collections
>>> isinstance('ciao', collections.Iterable)
True
>>> isinstance(23, collections.Iterable)
False
>>> isinstance(xrange(23), collections.Iterable)
True
Indeed, this kind of checks is the prime design reason for the new abstract base classes (a second important one is to provide "mixin functionality" in some cases, which is why they're ABCs rather than just interfaces -- but that doesn't apply to collections.Iterable
, it exists strictly to allow such checks with isinstance
or issubclass
). ABCs allow classes that don't actually inherit from them to be "registered" as subclasses anyway, so that such classes can be "subclasses" of the ABC for such checks; and, they can internally perform all needed checks for special methods (__iter__
in this case), so you don't have to.
If you're stuck with older releases of Python, "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission":
def isiterable(x):
try: iter(x)
except TypeError: return False
else: return True
but that's not as fast and concise as the new approach.
Note that for this special case you'll often want to special-case strings (which are iterable but most application contexts want to treat as "scalars" anyway). Whatever approach you're using to check iterableness, if you need such special casing just prepend a check for isinstance(x, basestring)
-- for example:
def reallyiterable(x):
return not isinstance(x, basestring) and isinstance(x, collections.Iterable)
Edit: as pointed out in a comment, the question focuses on whether an object is an iter***ator*** rather than whether it's iter***able*** (all iterators are iterable, but not vice versa -- not all iterables are iterators). isinstance(x, collections.Iterator)
is the perfectly analogous way to check for that condition specifically.
Check if object is in an iterable using is identity instead of == equality
Use the any
function:
if any(x is object for x in lst):
# ...
Related Topics
Copy to Clipboard in Chrome Extension
Find Day Difference Between Two Dates (Excluding Weekend Days)
JavaScript Reload the Page with Hash Value
Is There a Generic Way to Set State in React Hooks? How to Manage Multiple States
Get Selected Text Position and Place an Element Next to It
Regex for Number with Decimals and Thousand Separator
Can Any Desktop Browsers Detect When the Computer Resumes from Sleep
How to Get a Specific Parameter from Location.Search
Reason Behind This Self Invoking Anonymous Function Variant
Create an Empty Object in JavaScript with {} or New Object()
Calculating Jday(Julian Day) in JavaScript
When to Use the Double Not (!!) Operator in JavaScript
How to Reverse an Array in JavaScript Without Using Libraries