Does Python have a ternary conditional operator?

Question

If Python does not have a ternary conditional operator, is it possible to simulate one using other language constructs?

Answer 1

You can index into a tuple:

(falseValue, trueValue)[test]

test needs to return True or False.
It might be safer to always implement it as:

(falseValue, trueValue)[test == True]

or you can use the built-in bool() to assure a Boolean value:

(falseValue, trueValue)[bool(<expression>)]

Answer 2

Yes.

>>> b = (True if 5 > 4 else False)
>>> print b
True

Answer 3

you can do this :-

[condition] and [expression_1] or [expression_2] ;

Example:-

print(number%2 and "odd" or "even")

This would print "odd" if the number is odd or "even" if the number is even.

---

The result :- If condition is true exp_1 is executed else exp_2 is executed.

Note :- 0 , None , False , emptylist , emptyString evaluates as False. And any data other than 0 evaluates to True.

Here's how it works:

if the condition [condition] becomes "True" then , expression_1 will be evaluated but not expression_2 . If we "and" something with 0 (zero) , the result will always to be fasle .So in the below statement ,

0 and exp

The expression exp won't be evaluated at all since "and" with 0 will always evaluate to zero and there is no need to evaluate the expression . This is how the compiler itself works , in all languages.

In

1 or exp

the expression exp won't be evaluated at all since "or" with 1 will always be 1. So it won't bother to evaluate the expression exp since the result will be 1 anyway . (compiler optimization methods).

But in case of

True and exp1 or exp2

The second expression exp2 won't be evaluated since True and exp1 would be True when exp1 isn't false .

Similarly in

False and exp1 or exp2

The expression exp1 won't be evaluated since False is equivalent to writing 0 and doing "and" with 0 would be 0 itself but after exp1 since "or" is used, it will evaluate the expression exp2 after "or" .

---

Note:- This kind of branching using "or" and "and" can only be used when the expression_1 doesn't have a Truth value of False (or 0 or None or emptylist [ ] or emptystring ' '.) since if expression_1 becomes False , then the expression_2 will be evaluated because of the presence "or" between exp_1 and exp_2.

In case you still want to make it work for all the cases regardless of what exp_1 and exp_2 truth values are, do this :-

[condition] and ([expression_1] or 1) or [expression_2] ;

Answer 4

Many programming languages derived from C usually have the following syntax of ternary conditional operator:

<condition> ? <expression1> : <expression2>

At first, the Python Benevolent Dictator For Life (I mean Guido van Rossum, of course) rejected it (as non-Pythonic style), since it's quite hard to understand for people not used to C language. Also, the colon sign : already has many uses in Python. After PEP 308 was approved, Python finally received its own shortcut conditional expression (what we use now):

<expression1> if <condition> else <expression2>

So, firstly it evaluates the condition. If it returns True, expression1 will be evaluated to give the result, otherwise expression2 will be evaluated. Due to Lazy Evaluation mechanics – only one expression will be executed.

Here are some examples (conditions will be evaluated from left to right):

pressure = 10
print('High' if pressure < 20 else 'Critical')

# Result is 'High'

Ternary operators can be changed:

pressure = 5
print('Normal' if pressure < 10 else 'High' if pressure < 20 else 'Critical')

# Result is 'Normal'

The following one is the same as previous one:

pressure = 5

if pressure < 20:
    if pressure < 10:
        print('Normal')
    else:
        print('High')
else:
    print('Critical')

# Result is 'Normal'

Hope this helps.

Answer 5

@up:

Unfortunately, the

(falseValue, trueValue)[test]

solution doesn't have short-circuit behaviour; thus both falseValue and trueValue are evaluated regardless of the condition. This could be suboptimal or even buggy (i.e. both trueValue and falseValue could be methods and have side-effects).

One solution to this would be

(lambda: falseValue, lambda: trueValue)[test]()

(execution delayed until the winner is known ;)), but it introduces inconsistency between callable and non-callable objects. In addition, it doesn't solve the case when using properties.

And so the story goes - choosing between 3 mentioned solutions is a trade-off between having the short-circuit feature, using at least python 2.5 (IMHO not a problem anymore) and not being prone to "trueValue-evaluates-to-false" errors.

Answer 6

For Python 2.5 and newer there is a specific syntax:

[on_true] if [cond] else [on_false]

In older Pythons a ternary operator is not implemented but it's possible to simulate it.

cond and on_true or on_false

Though, there is a potential problem, which if cond evaluates to True and on_true evaluates to False then on_false is returned instead of on_true. If you want this behavior the method is OK, otherwise use this:

{True: on_true, False: on_false}[cond is True] # is True, not == True

which can be wrapped by:

def q(cond, on_true, on_false)
    return {True: on_true, False: on_false}[cond is True]

and used this way:

q(cond, on_true, on_false)

It is compatible with all Python versions.