W3schools Javascript Ternary Operator

| | | | | | |

👻 Check our latest review to choose the best laptop for Machine Learning engineers and Deep learning tasks!

The Python ternary operator allows you to evaluate whether a condition is true or false. The ternary operator takes one line of code, which mean s it’s shorter and more concise than a full if ... other.

Conditional statements, such as statements, allow you to check the flow of your schedule . Code in conditional statements is executed only when a particular condition is (or a set of conditions) is true.

In Python, the most common way to write a conditional statement is to use if. However, the language also offers a way to test a condition on a line: the ternary operator.

This tutorial will discuss, with reference to examples, the basics of conditional declarations and how to use the Python ternary operator.

Python conditionals

When writing a program, you can run a single line or block of code when a condition is met. This is where conditional statements come in handy.

The Python if statement is used to check if a condition is met.

Suppose you create an application that checks if a customer qualifies for a 10% discount at a movie theater. If the customer is 65 years of age or over, he should be given a discount, otherwise no discount should be given. We could build this program using an if ... else statement.

But, if the declarations take at least two lines of code. There is a more concise way to write an if statement if you are only evaluating a few conditions:. The ternary operator in Python

Ternary Python operator

The ternary operator is a type of expression conditional in Python which allows a declaration to be evaluated. Ternary operators perform an action depending on whether this statement is true or false. They are more concise than a traditional if ... else statement

Syntax of the Python ternary statement is as follows:

The ternary conditional operator in Python derives its name from the fact that it accepts three parameters:. if_true, expression, and if_false

ternary operators are typically used to determine the value of a variable. The variable takes the value of "if_true" if declarations of True or "if_false" if declarations of false declaration.

A way of thinking of ternary operators like list Python comprehension to filter a list. Or , you might be thinking what a lambda function is to define a function.

Both understanding lists and lambda functions are more efficient ways of performing an action ( filtering lists and defining a function, respectively). This is just as a ternary operator is a more efficient way to write an if statement.

But, like ternary operators, they should only be used to improve the readability of your code. You shouldn’t go overboard with ternary operators, otherwise your code may be harder to read.

Let’s say we want to give a customer of our theater a discount if they are 65 or over. If a customer is under 65 or over, they are not entitled to a discount. We can check if a customer is eligible to receive a disoutn by using the following code:

Our code returns: false.

In the first line, we declare a Python variables called age. This variable is assigned the value 48. Next, we use a ternary operator to calculate whether the customer is entitled to a discount.

Our ternary operator evaluates the age of expression> = 65 Since age equals 48, it returns false. So the code that appears after executing the other statement.

Next, we display the output of our ternary operator on the console. This returns the value False.

If we compare this example with our last one, you can see that it uses much less lines of code. Our first program used five lines of code and this one used three.

In this example, our ternary operator returns a Boolean Python value (True or False). However, we could allow our ternary operator to return a value.

ternary python with numeric values ‚Äã‚Äã

Suppose we want to set a specific discount rate depending on whether the user is entitled to a discount . By default, our cinema offers all customers a 5% discount , but seniors (65 and over) are entitled to a 10% discount .

The following program allows us to verify if a customer qualifies for the senior discount . If a customer is not entitled to the senior discount , they receive a 5% discount:

Our code returns: 5. In our code, we assign the value 22 to the age variable.

We use a ternary operator to check if the value of the variable age is less than 65 Since our client is 22, the instruction age < 65 < / em> returns True. this mean s that the customer benefits from a discount rate of 5%. If our client was 65 or older, he receives the 10% discount rate .

Next, we print the value of the scount variable to the console.

Conclusion

The Python ternary operator is a more efficient way to just execute if statements. The ternary operator evaluates a condition, then returns a specific value depending on whether the condition is True or False.

In the previous examples, we were able to perform an if of an inline declaration. This is more concise than the multiple lines normally required to create an if statement.

However, the ternary operator cannot always be used. If you want to test multiple expressions, you must write a full if statement. This will ensure that your code is readable and easy to understand.

This tutorial has discussed, referring to examples, the basics of the Python ternary operator and how it works. You now have the knowledge to use this operator like a Python pro!

To learn more about coding in Python, see our complete guide on How to learn Python .

👻 Read also: what is the best laptop for engineering students?

W3schools Javascript Ternary Operator exp: Questions

How do I merge two dictionaries in a single expression (taking union of dictionaries)?

By Carl Meyer

I have two Python dictionaries, and I want to write a single expression that returns these two dictionaries, merged (i.e. taking the union). The `update()` method would be what I need, if it returned its result instead of modifying a dictionary in-place.

``````>>> x = {"a": 1, "b": 2}
>>> y = {"b": 10, "c": 11}
>>> z = x.update(y)
>>> print(z)
None
>>> x
{"a": 1, "b": 10, "c": 11}
``````

How can I get that final merged dictionary in `z`, not `x`?

(To be extra-clear, the last-one-wins conflict-handling of `dict.update()` is what I"m looking for as well.)

5839

How can I merge two Python dictionaries in a single expression?

For dictionaries `x` and `y`, `z` becomes a shallowly-merged dictionary with values from `y` replacing those from `x`.

• In Python 3.9.0 or greater (released 17 October 2020): PEP-584, discussed here, was implemented and provides the simplest method:

``````z = x | y          # NOTE: 3.9+ ONLY
``````
• In Python 3.5 or greater:

``````z = {**x, **y}
``````
• In Python 2, (or 3.4 or lower) write a function:

``````def merge_two_dicts(x, y):
z.update(y)    # modifies z with keys and values of y
return z
``````

and now:

``````z = merge_two_dicts(x, y)
``````

Explanation

Say you have two dictionaries and you want to merge them into a new dictionary without altering the original dictionaries:

``````x = {"a": 1, "b": 2}
y = {"b": 3, "c": 4}
``````

The desired result is to get a new dictionary (`z`) with the values merged, and the second dictionary"s values overwriting those from the first.

``````>>> z
{"a": 1, "b": 3, "c": 4}
``````

A new syntax for this, proposed in PEP 448 and available as of Python 3.5, is

``````z = {**x, **y}
``````

And it is indeed a single expression.

Note that we can merge in with literal notation as well:

``````z = {**x, "foo": 1, "bar": 2, **y}
``````

and now:

``````>>> z
{"a": 1, "b": 3, "foo": 1, "bar": 2, "c": 4}
``````

It is now showing as implemented in the release schedule for 3.5, PEP 478, and it has now made its way into the What"s New in Python 3.5 document.

However, since many organizations are still on Python 2, you may wish to do this in a backward-compatible way. The classically Pythonic way, available in Python 2 and Python 3.0-3.4, is to do this as a two-step process:

``````z = x.copy()
z.update(y) # which returns None since it mutates z
``````

In both approaches, `y` will come second and its values will replace `x`"s values, thus `b` will point to `3` in our final result.

Not yet on Python 3.5, but want a single expression

If you are not yet on Python 3.5 or need to write backward-compatible code, and you want this in a single expression, the most performant while the correct approach is to put it in a function:

``````def merge_two_dicts(x, y):
"""Given two dictionaries, merge them into a new dict as a shallow copy."""
z = x.copy()
z.update(y)
return z
``````

and then you have a single expression:

``````z = merge_two_dicts(x, y)
``````

You can also make a function to merge an arbitrary number of dictionaries, from zero to a very large number:

``````def merge_dicts(*dict_args):
"""
Given any number of dictionaries, shallow copy and merge into a new dict,
precedence goes to key-value pairs in latter dictionaries.
"""
result = {}
for dictionary in dict_args:
result.update(dictionary)
return result
``````

This function will work in Python 2 and 3 for all dictionaries. e.g. given dictionaries `a` to `g`:

``````z = merge_dicts(a, b, c, d, e, f, g)
``````

and key-value pairs in `g` will take precedence over dictionaries `a` to `f`, and so on.

Don"t use what you see in the formerly accepted answer:

``````z = dict(x.items() + y.items())
``````

In Python 2, you create two lists in memory for each dict, create a third list in memory with length equal to the length of the first two put together, and then discard all three lists to create the dict. In Python 3, this will fail because you"re adding two `dict_items` objects together, not two lists -

``````>>> c = dict(a.items() + b.items())
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: "dict_items" and "dict_items"
``````

and you would have to explicitly create them as lists, e.g. `z = dict(list(x.items()) + list(y.items()))`. This is a waste of resources and computation power.

Similarly, taking the union of `items()` in Python 3 (`viewitems()` in Python 2.7) will also fail when values are unhashable objects (like lists, for example). Even if your values are hashable, since sets are semantically unordered, the behavior is undefined in regards to precedence. So don"t do this:

``````>>> c = dict(a.items() | b.items())
``````

This example demonstrates what happens when values are unhashable:

``````>>> x = {"a": []}
>>> y = {"b": []}
>>> dict(x.items() | y.items())
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: unhashable type: "list"
``````

Here"s an example where `y` should have precedence, but instead the value from `x` is retained due to the arbitrary order of sets:

``````>>> x = {"a": 2}
>>> y = {"a": 1}
>>> dict(x.items() | y.items())
{"a": 2}
``````

Another hack you should not use:

``````z = dict(x, **y)
``````

This uses the `dict` constructor and is very fast and memory-efficient (even slightly more so than our two-step process) but unless you know precisely what is happening here (that is, the second dict is being passed as keyword arguments to the dict constructor), it"s difficult to read, it"s not the intended usage, and so it is not Pythonic.

Here"s an example of the usage being remediated in django.

Dictionaries are intended to take hashable keys (e.g. `frozenset`s or tuples), but this method fails in Python 3 when keys are not strings.

``````>>> c = dict(a, **b)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: keyword arguments must be strings
``````

From the mailing list, Guido van Rossum, the creator of the language, wrote:

I am fine with declaring dict({}, **{1:3}) illegal, since after all it is abuse of the ** mechanism.

and

Apparently dict(x, **y) is going around as "cool hack" for "call x.update(y) and return x". Personally, I find it more despicable than cool.

It is my understanding (as well as the understanding of the creator of the language) that the intended usage for `dict(**y)` is for creating dictionaries for readability purposes, e.g.:

``````dict(a=1, b=10, c=11)
``````

``````{"a": 1, "b": 10, "c": 11}
``````

Despite what Guido says, `dict(x, **y)` is in line with the dict specification, which btw. works for both Python 2 and 3. The fact that this only works for string keys is a direct consequence of how keyword parameters work and not a short-coming of dict. Nor is using the ** operator in this place an abuse of the mechanism, in fact, ** was designed precisely to pass dictionaries as keywords.

Again, it doesn"t work for 3 when keys are not strings. The implicit calling contract is that namespaces take ordinary dictionaries, while users must only pass keyword arguments that are strings. All other callables enforced it. `dict` broke this consistency in Python 2:

``````>>> foo(**{("a", "b"): None})
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: foo() keywords must be strings
>>> dict(**{("a", "b"): None})
{("a", "b"): None}
``````

This inconsistency was bad given other implementations of Python (PyPy, Jython, IronPython). Thus it was fixed in Python 3, as this usage could be a breaking change.

I submit to you that it is malicious incompetence to intentionally write code that only works in one version of a language or that only works given certain arbitrary constraints.

`dict(x.items() + y.items())` is still the most readable solution for Python 2. Readability counts.

My response: `merge_two_dicts(x, y)` actually seems much clearer to me, if we"re actually concerned about readability. And it is not forward compatible, as Python 2 is increasingly deprecated.

`{**x, **y}` does not seem to handle nested dictionaries. the contents of nested keys are simply overwritten, not merged [...] I ended up being burnt by these answers that do not merge recursively and I was surprised no one mentioned it. In my interpretation of the word "merging" these answers describe "updating one dict with another", and not merging.

Yes. I must refer you back to the question, which is asking for a shallow merge of two dictionaries, with the first"s values being overwritten by the second"s - in a single expression.

Assuming two dictionaries of dictionaries, one might recursively merge them in a single function, but you should be careful not to modify the dictionaries from either source, and the surest way to avoid that is to make a copy when assigning values. As keys must be hashable and are usually therefore immutable, it is pointless to copy them:

``````from copy import deepcopy

def dict_of_dicts_merge(x, y):
z = {}
overlapping_keys = x.keys() & y.keys()
for key in overlapping_keys:
z[key] = dict_of_dicts_merge(x[key], y[key])
for key in x.keys() - overlapping_keys:
z[key] = deepcopy(x[key])
for key in y.keys() - overlapping_keys:
z[key] = deepcopy(y[key])
return z
``````

Usage:

``````>>> x = {"a":{1:{}}, "b": {2:{}}}
>>> y = {"b":{10:{}}, "c": {11:{}}}
>>> dict_of_dicts_merge(x, y)
{"b": {2: {}, 10: {}}, "a": {1: {}}, "c": {11: {}}}
``````

Coming up with contingencies for other value types is far beyond the scope of this question, so I will point you at my answer to the canonical question on a "Dictionaries of dictionaries merge".

These approaches are less performant, but they will provide correct behavior. They will be much less performant than `copy` and `update` or the new unpacking because they iterate through each key-value pair at a higher level of abstraction, but they do respect the order of precedence (latter dictionaries have precedence)

You can also chain the dictionaries manually inside a dict comprehension:

``````{k: v for d in dicts for k, v in d.items()} # iteritems in Python 2.7
``````

or in Python 2.6 (and perhaps as early as 2.4 when generator expressions were introduced):

``````dict((k, v) for d in dicts for k, v in d.items()) # iteritems in Python 2
``````

`itertools.chain` will chain the iterators over the key-value pairs in the correct order:

``````from itertools import chain
z = dict(chain(x.items(), y.items())) # iteritems in Python 2
``````

Performance Analysis

I"m only going to do the performance analysis of the usages known to behave correctly. (Self-contained so you can copy and paste yourself.)

``````from timeit import repeat
from itertools import chain

x = dict.fromkeys("abcdefg")
y = dict.fromkeys("efghijk")

def merge_two_dicts(x, y):
z = x.copy()
z.update(y)
return z

min(repeat(lambda: {**x, **y}))
min(repeat(lambda: merge_two_dicts(x, y)))
min(repeat(lambda: {k: v for d in (x, y) for k, v in d.items()}))
min(repeat(lambda: dict(chain(x.items(), y.items()))))
min(repeat(lambda: dict(item for d in (x, y) for item in d.items())))
``````

In Python 3.8.1, NixOS:

``````>>> min(repeat(lambda: {**x, **y}))
1.0804965235292912
>>> min(repeat(lambda: merge_two_dicts(x, y)))
1.636518670246005
>>> min(repeat(lambda: {k: v for d in (x, y) for k, v in d.items()}))
3.1779992282390594
>>> min(repeat(lambda: dict(chain(x.items(), y.items()))))
2.740647904574871
>>> min(repeat(lambda: dict(item for d in (x, y) for item in d.items())))
4.266070580109954
``````
``````\$ uname -a
Linux nixos 4.19.113 #1-NixOS SMP Wed Mar 25 07:06:15 UTC 2020 x86_64 GNU/Linux
``````

Resources on Dictionaries

5839

In your case, what you can do is:

``````z = dict(list(x.items()) + list(y.items()))
``````

This will, as you want it, put the final dict in `z`, and make the value for key `b` be properly overridden by the second (`y`) dict"s value:

``````>>> x = {"a":1, "b": 2}
>>> y = {"b":10, "c": 11}
>>> z = dict(list(x.items()) + list(y.items()))
>>> z
{"a": 1, "c": 11, "b": 10}

``````

If you use Python 2, you can even remove the `list()` calls. To create z:

``````>>> z = dict(x.items() + y.items())
>>> z
{"a": 1, "c": 11, "b": 10}
``````

If you use Python version 3.9.0a4 or greater, then you can directly use:

``````x = {"a":1, "b": 2}
y = {"b":10, "c": 11}
z = x | y
print(z)
``````
``````{"a": 1, "c": 11, "b": 10}
``````

5839

An alternative:

``````z = x.copy()
z.update(y)
``````

List comprehension vs. lambda + filter

I happened to find myself having a basic filtering need: I have a list and I have to filter it by an attribute of the items.

My code looked like this:

``````my_list = [x for x in my_list if x.attribute == value]
``````

But then I thought, wouldn"t it be better to write it like this?

``````my_list = filter(lambda x: x.attribute == value, my_list)
``````

It"s more readable, and if needed for performance the lambda could be taken out to gain something.

Question is: are there any caveats in using the second way? Any performance difference? Am I missing the Pythonic Way‚Ñ¢ entirely and should do it in yet another way (such as using itemgetter instead of the lambda)?

957

It is strange how much beauty varies for different people. I find the list comprehension much clearer than `filter`+`lambda`, but use whichever you find easier.

There are two things that may slow down your use of `filter`.

The first is the function call overhead: as soon as you use a Python function (whether created by `def` or `lambda`) it is likely that filter will be slower than the list comprehension. It almost certainly is not enough to matter, and you shouldn"t think much about performance until you"ve timed your code and found it to be a bottleneck, but the difference will be there.

The other overhead that might apply is that the lambda is being forced to access a scoped variable (`value`). That is slower than accessing a local variable and in Python 2.x the list comprehension only accesses local variables. If you are using Python 3.x the list comprehension runs in a separate function so it will also be accessing `value` through a closure and this difference won"t apply.

The other option to consider is to use a generator instead of a list comprehension:

``````def filterbyvalue(seq, value):
for el in seq:
if el.attribute==value: yield el
``````

Then in your main code (which is where readability really matters) you"ve replaced both list comprehension and filter with a hopefully meaningful function name.

957

This is a somewhat religious issue in Python. Even though Guido considered removing `map`, `filter` and `reduce` from Python 3, there was enough of a backlash that in the end only `reduce` was moved from built-ins to functools.reduce.

Personally I find list comprehensions easier to read. It is more explicit what is happening from the expression `[i for i in list if i.attribute == value]` as all the behaviour is on the surface not inside the filter function.

I would not worry too much about the performance difference between the two approaches as it is marginal. I would really only optimise this if it proved to be the bottleneck in your application which is unlikely.

Also since the BDFL wanted `filter` gone from the language then surely that automatically makes list comprehensions more Pythonic ;-)

How do I do a not equal in Django queryset filtering?

By MikeN

In Django model QuerySets, I see that there is a `__gt` and `__lt` for comparative values, but is there a `__ne` or `!=` (not equals)? I want to filter out using a not equals. For example, for

``````Model:
bool a;
int x;
``````

I want to do

``````results = Model.objects.exclude(a=True, x!=5)
``````

The `!=` is not correct syntax. I also tried `__ne`.

I ended up using:

``````results = Model.objects.exclude(a=True, x__lt=5).exclude(a=True, x__gt=5)
``````
784

You can use Q objects for this. They can be negated with the `~` operator and combined much like normal Python expressions:

``````from myapp.models import Entry
from django.db.models import Q

Entry.objects.filter(~Q(id=3))
``````

will return all entries except the one(s) with `3` as their ID:

``````[<Entry: Entry object>, <Entry: Entry object>, <Entry: Entry object>, ...]
``````

We hope this article has helped you to resolve the problem. Apart from W3schools Javascript Ternary Operator, check other exp-related topics.

Want to excel in Python? See our review of the best Python online courses 2022. If you are interested in Data Science, check also how to learn programming in R.

By the way, this material is also available in other languages:

Carlo Krasiko

London | 2022-11-30

Maybe there are another answers? What W3schools Javascript Ternary Operator exactly means?. Will get back tomorrow with feedback

Angelo Richtgofen

California | 2022-11-30

I was preparing for my coding interview, thanks for clarifying this - W3schools Javascript Ternary Operator in Python is not the simplest one. Will use it in my bachelor thesis

Marie Gonzalez

Milan | 2022-11-30

I was preparing for my coding interview, thanks for clarifying this - W3schools Javascript Ternary Operator in Python is not the simplest one. Will use it in my bachelor thesis

Shop

Learn programming in R: courses

\$

Best Python online courses for 2022

\$

Best laptop for Fortnite

\$

Best laptop for Excel

\$

Best laptop for Solidworks

\$

Best laptop for Roblox

\$

Best computer for crypto mining

\$

Best laptop for Sims 4

\$

Latest questions

NUMPYNUMPY

Common xlabel/ylabel for matplotlib subplots

NUMPYNUMPY

How to specify multiple return types using type-hints

NUMPYNUMPY

Why do I get "Pickle - EOFError: Ran out of input" reading an empty file?

NUMPYNUMPY

Flake8: Ignore specific warning for entire file

NUMPYNUMPY

glob exclude pattern

NUMPYNUMPY

How to avoid HTTP error 429 (Too Many Requests) python

NUMPYNUMPY

Python CSV error: line contains NULL byte

NUMPYNUMPY

csv.Error: iterator should return strings, not bytes

Wiki

Python | How to copy data from one Excel sheet to another

Common xlabel/ylabel for matplotlib subplots

Check if one list is a subset of another in Python

How to specify multiple return types using type-hints

Printing words vertically in Python

Python Extract words from a given string

Cyclic redundancy check in Python

Finding mean, median, mode in Python without libraries