Mimicking Pass-By-Reference in Python/Javascript Using Wrappers - Good Practice?












-1















Say I want to modify a number or some other primitive inside of a function. For example, something like this (note: pseudocode):



// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, result):

    if (tree == undefined) return

    treeReduce(tree.left, fn, result)

    result = fn(result, tree.value)

    treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)



sum = 0

treeReduce(myTree, +, sum)


obviously this won't work, because result is just being reassigned, and the sum passed in won't see the modifications. So a common way I have gotten around this (in any pass-by-value language like Python or Javascript) is using wrappers:



// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, result):

    if (tree == undefined) return

    treeReduce(tree.left, fn, result)

    result[0] = fn(result[0], tree.value)

    treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)



sumWrapper = [0]

treeReduce(myTree, +, sumWrapper)


However, I recently searched the internet to see if this is a common pattern, and can't find much information about it. Specifically, I'd like to know three things:




  1. is this a common pattern?

  2. is this good practice?

  3. if not, any alternatives?






javascript python pass-by-value







share|improve this question

























  • It doesn't seem to be a bad practice, it resembles the monads of functional programming, as they are wrappers. I would pass a reducer function. Also consider creating an iterator, it can be useful for other things.

    – David Lemon
    Nov 15 '18 at 8:21











  • what do you mean by passing a reducer function? Isn't this already passing a reducer function fn?

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:33
















-1















Say I want to modify a number or some other primitive inside of a function. For example, something like this (note: pseudocode):



// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, result):

    if (tree == undefined) return

    treeReduce(tree.left, fn, result)

    result = fn(result, tree.value)

    treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)



sum = 0

treeReduce(myTree, +, sum)


obviously this won't work, because result is just being reassigned, and the sum passed in won't see the modifications. So a common way I have gotten around this (in any pass-by-value language like Python or Javascript) is using wrappers:



// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, result):

    if (tree == undefined) return

    treeReduce(tree.left, fn, result)

    result[0] = fn(result[0], tree.value)

    treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)



sumWrapper = [0]

treeReduce(myTree, +, sumWrapper)


However, I recently searched the internet to see if this is a common pattern, and can't find much information about it. Specifically, I'd like to know three things:




  1. is this a common pattern?

  2. is this good practice?

  3. if not, any alternatives?






javascript python pass-by-value







share|improve this question

























  • It doesn't seem to be a bad practice, it resembles the monads of functional programming, as they are wrappers. I would pass a reducer function. Also consider creating an iterator, it can be useful for other things.

    – David Lemon
    Nov 15 '18 at 8:21











  • what do you mean by passing a reducer function? Isn't this already passing a reducer function fn?

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:33














-1












-1








-1








Say I want to modify a number or some other primitive inside of a function. For example, something like this (note: pseudocode):



// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, result):

    if (tree == undefined) return

    treeReduce(tree.left, fn, result)

    result = fn(result, tree.value)

    treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)



sum = 0

treeReduce(myTree, +, sum)


obviously this won't work, because result is just being reassigned, and the sum passed in won't see the modifications. So a common way I have gotten around this (in any pass-by-value language like Python or Javascript) is using wrappers:



// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, result):

    if (tree == undefined) return

    treeReduce(tree.left, fn, result)

    result[0] = fn(result[0], tree.value)

    treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)



sumWrapper = [0]

treeReduce(myTree, +, sumWrapper)


However, I recently searched the internet to see if this is a common pattern, and can't find much information about it. Specifically, I'd like to know three things:




  1. is this a common pattern?

  2. is this good practice?

  3. if not, any alternatives?






javascript python pass-by-value







share|improve this question
















Say I want to modify a number or some other primitive inside of a function. For example, something like this (note: pseudocode):



// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, result):

    if (tree == undefined) return

    treeReduce(tree.left, fn, result)

    result = fn(result, tree.value)

    treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)



sum = 0

treeReduce(myTree, +, sum)


obviously this won't work, because result is just being reassigned, and the sum passed in won't see the modifications. So a common way I have gotten around this (in any pass-by-value language like Python or Javascript) is using wrappers:



// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, result):

    if (tree == undefined) return

    treeReduce(tree.left, fn, result)

    result[0] = fn(result[0], tree.value)

    treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)



sumWrapper = [0]

treeReduce(myTree, +, sumWrapper)


However, I recently searched the internet to see if this is a common pattern, and can't find much information about it. Specifically, I'd like to know three things:




  1. is this a common pattern?

  2. is this good practice?

  3. if not, any alternatives?






javascript python pass-by-value




javascript python pass-by-value






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 15 '18 at 8:09







woojoo666

















asked Nov 15 '18 at 5:15









woojoo666woojoo666

5,08752643




5,08752643













  • It doesn't seem to be a bad practice, it resembles the monads of functional programming, as they are wrappers. I would pass a reducer function. Also consider creating an iterator, it can be useful for other things.

    – David Lemon
    Nov 15 '18 at 8:21











  • what do you mean by passing a reducer function? Isn't this already passing a reducer function fn?

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:33



















  • It doesn't seem to be a bad practice, it resembles the monads of functional programming, as they are wrappers. I would pass a reducer function. Also consider creating an iterator, it can be useful for other things.

    – David Lemon
    Nov 15 '18 at 8:21











  • what do you mean by passing a reducer function? Isn't this already passing a reducer function fn?

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:33

















It doesn't seem to be a bad practice, it resembles the monads of functional programming, as they are wrappers. I would pass a reducer function. Also consider creating an iterator, it can be useful for other things.

– David Lemon
Nov 15 '18 at 8:21





It doesn't seem to be a bad practice, it resembles the monads of functional programming, as they are wrappers. I would pass a reducer function. Also consider creating an iterator, it can be useful for other things.

– David Lemon
Nov 15 '18 at 8:21













what do you mean by passing a reducer function? Isn't this already passing a reducer function fn?

– woojoo666
Nov 16 '18 at 2:33





what do you mean by passing a reducer function? Isn't this already passing a reducer function fn?

– woojoo666
Nov 16 '18 at 2:33












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














It could be done like that, however it increases "sideeffects" of your function which most coders would advise to minimise as much as possible. Instead you could use the function's return value for it. Your code would then still pass the "previous" (or "start") value as a primitive, but return the result.



Here is how it would look in JS (I took a less trivial fn to demonstrate it performs an in-order execution):






// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    if (tree === undefined) return start

    let result = treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start)

    result = fn(result, tree.value)

    result = treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)

    return result

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





Note that the above can be written more concisely now:






// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    return !tree ? start

        : treeReduce(tree.right, fn, fn(treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start), tree.value))

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





In Python:



import collections

Tree = collections.namedtuple('Tree', ['value', 'left', 'right'])



# apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

def treeReduce (tree, fn, start):

    return start if not tree else ( 

        treeReduce(tree.right, fn, fn(treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start), tree.value))

    )



myTree = Tree(1, Tree(2,None,None), Tree(3,None,None))



result = treeReduce(myTree, lambda a,b: a*a+b, 0)



print(result)


Both JS and Python also allow to extend this to the case where you would need to set multiple primitive values: functions can return arrays/lists/tuples/objects, which can then be assigned by unpacking/destructuring them into separate variables.






share|improve this answer


























  • I am not sure if that would work, and it's a bit hard to explain why, so sorry if I get it wrong. You aren't passing the accumulator (in this case, result) to the right side of the tree. The reducer fn takes in the accumulator result and a node value, but you are calling it with result and the reduction of tree.right

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:30











  • though I can see now that it probably can be done with a return value instead of side effects, it will probably require a helper function, because you somehow have to pass the accumulator to the right side of the tree, so the helper function needs to take it in as an argument

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:32











  • True, I had taken the addition from your example, but to have in-order accumulation, you would have to pass the previous value as argument. I updated my answer.

    – trincot
    Nov 16 '18 at 8:01











  • ok so I was partially right, you had to pass the accumulator in as an argument, but you didn't need a helper function, which is nice. I feel like the "concise" version is kinda hard to read, but the first version has comparable readability as my original wrapper-based code, and has no side-effects, so I'm going to accept this answer. I have a feeling there are other examples that are not as easy to convert to return-style, but I will have to think about it more

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 14:05











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%2f53312859%2fmimicking-pass-by-reference-in-python-javascript-using-wrappers-good-practice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














It could be done like that, however it increases "sideeffects" of your function which most coders would advise to minimise as much as possible. Instead you could use the function's return value for it. Your code would then still pass the "previous" (or "start") value as a primitive, but return the result.



Here is how it would look in JS (I took a less trivial fn to demonstrate it performs an in-order execution):






// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    if (tree === undefined) return start

    let result = treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start)

    result = fn(result, tree.value)

    result = treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)

    return result

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





Note that the above can be written more concisely now:






// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    return !tree ? start

        : treeReduce(tree.right, fn, fn(treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start), tree.value))

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





In Python:



import collections

Tree = collections.namedtuple('Tree', ['value', 'left', 'right'])



# apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

def treeReduce (tree, fn, start):

    return start if not tree else ( 

        treeReduce(tree.right, fn, fn(treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start), tree.value))

    )



myTree = Tree(1, Tree(2,None,None), Tree(3,None,None))



result = treeReduce(myTree, lambda a,b: a*a+b, 0)



print(result)


Both JS and Python also allow to extend this to the case where you would need to set multiple primitive values: functions can return arrays/lists/tuples/objects, which can then be assigned by unpacking/destructuring them into separate variables.






share|improve this answer


























  • I am not sure if that would work, and it's a bit hard to explain why, so sorry if I get it wrong. You aren't passing the accumulator (in this case, result) to the right side of the tree. The reducer fn takes in the accumulator result and a node value, but you are calling it with result and the reduction of tree.right

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:30











  • though I can see now that it probably can be done with a return value instead of side effects, it will probably require a helper function, because you somehow have to pass the accumulator to the right side of the tree, so the helper function needs to take it in as an argument

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:32











  • True, I had taken the addition from your example, but to have in-order accumulation, you would have to pass the previous value as argument. I updated my answer.

    – trincot
    Nov 16 '18 at 8:01











  • ok so I was partially right, you had to pass the accumulator in as an argument, but you didn't need a helper function, which is nice. I feel like the "concise" version is kinda hard to read, but the first version has comparable readability as my original wrapper-based code, and has no side-effects, so I'm going to accept this answer. I have a feeling there are other examples that are not as easy to convert to return-style, but I will have to think about it more

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 14:05
















2














It could be done like that, however it increases "sideeffects" of your function which most coders would advise to minimise as much as possible. Instead you could use the function's return value for it. Your code would then still pass the "previous" (or "start") value as a primitive, but return the result.



Here is how it would look in JS (I took a less trivial fn to demonstrate it performs an in-order execution):






// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    if (tree === undefined) return start

    let result = treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start)

    result = fn(result, tree.value)

    result = treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)

    return result

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





Note that the above can be written more concisely now:






// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    return !tree ? start

        : treeReduce(tree.right, fn, fn(treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start), tree.value))

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





In Python:



import collections

Tree = collections.namedtuple('Tree', ['value', 'left', 'right'])



# apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

def treeReduce (tree, fn, start):

    return start if not tree else ( 

        treeReduce(tree.right, fn, fn(treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start), tree.value))

    )



myTree = Tree(1, Tree(2,None,None), Tree(3,None,None))



result = treeReduce(myTree, lambda a,b: a*a+b, 0)



print(result)


Both JS and Python also allow to extend this to the case where you would need to set multiple primitive values: functions can return arrays/lists/tuples/objects, which can then be assigned by unpacking/destructuring them into separate variables.






share|improve this answer


























  • I am not sure if that would work, and it's a bit hard to explain why, so sorry if I get it wrong. You aren't passing the accumulator (in this case, result) to the right side of the tree. The reducer fn takes in the accumulator result and a node value, but you are calling it with result and the reduction of tree.right

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:30











  • though I can see now that it probably can be done with a return value instead of side effects, it will probably require a helper function, because you somehow have to pass the accumulator to the right side of the tree, so the helper function needs to take it in as an argument

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:32











  • True, I had taken the addition from your example, but to have in-order accumulation, you would have to pass the previous value as argument. I updated my answer.

    – trincot
    Nov 16 '18 at 8:01











  • ok so I was partially right, you had to pass the accumulator in as an argument, but you didn't need a helper function, which is nice. I feel like the "concise" version is kinda hard to read, but the first version has comparable readability as my original wrapper-based code, and has no side-effects, so I'm going to accept this answer. I have a feeling there are other examples that are not as easy to convert to return-style, but I will have to think about it more

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 14:05














2












2








2







It could be done like that, however it increases "sideeffects" of your function which most coders would advise to minimise as much as possible. Instead you could use the function's return value for it. Your code would then still pass the "previous" (or "start") value as a primitive, but return the result.



Here is how it would look in JS (I took a less trivial fn to demonstrate it performs an in-order execution):






// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    if (tree === undefined) return start

    let result = treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start)

    result = fn(result, tree.value)

    result = treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)

    return result

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





Note that the above can be written more concisely now:






// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    return !tree ? start

        : treeReduce(tree.right, fn, fn(treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start), tree.value))

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





In Python:



import collections

Tree = collections.namedtuple('Tree', ['value', 'left', 'right'])



# apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

def treeReduce (tree, fn, start):

    return start if not tree else ( 

        treeReduce(tree.right, fn, fn(treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start), tree.value))

    )



myTree = Tree(1, Tree(2,None,None), Tree(3,None,None))



result = treeReduce(myTree, lambda a,b: a*a+b, 0)



print(result)


Both JS and Python also allow to extend this to the case where you would need to set multiple primitive values: functions can return arrays/lists/tuples/objects, which can then be assigned by unpacking/destructuring them into separate variables.






share|improve this answer















It could be done like that, however it increases "sideeffects" of your function which most coders would advise to minimise as much as possible. Instead you could use the function's return value for it. Your code would then still pass the "previous" (or "start") value as a primitive, but return the result.



Here is how it would look in JS (I took a less trivial fn to demonstrate it performs an in-order execution):






// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    if (tree === undefined) return start

    let result = treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start)

    result = fn(result, tree.value)

    result = treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)

    return result

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





Note that the above can be written more concisely now:






// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    return !tree ? start

        : treeReduce(tree.right, fn, fn(treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start), tree.value))

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





In Python:



import collections

Tree = collections.namedtuple('Tree', ['value', 'left', 'right'])



# apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

def treeReduce (tree, fn, start):

    return start if not tree else ( 

        treeReduce(tree.right, fn, fn(treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start), tree.value))

    )



myTree = Tree(1, Tree(2,None,None), Tree(3,None,None))



result = treeReduce(myTree, lambda a,b: a*a+b, 0)



print(result)


Both JS and Python also allow to extend this to the case where you would need to set multiple primitive values: functions can return arrays/lists/tuples/objects, which can then be assigned by unpacking/destructuring them into separate variables.






// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    if (tree === undefined) return start

    let result = treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start)

    result = fn(result, tree.value)

    result = treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)

    return result

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    if (tree === undefined) return start

    let result = treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start)

    result = fn(result, tree.value)

    result = treeReduce(tree.right, fn, result)

    return result

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    return !tree ? start

        : treeReduce(tree.right, fn, fn(treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start), tree.value))

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)





// apply fn to every value in a tree, in-order traversal

function treeReduce (tree, fn, start) {

    return !tree ? start

        : treeReduce(tree.right, fn, fn(treeReduce(tree.left, fn, start), tree.value))

}



let myTree = { value: 1, left: { value: 2 }, right: { value: 3 } }



let result = treeReduce(myTree, (a,b) => a*a+b, 0)

console.log(result)






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 16 '18 at 7:54

























answered Nov 15 '18 at 8:14









trincottrincot

125k1588121




125k1588121













  • I am not sure if that would work, and it's a bit hard to explain why, so sorry if I get it wrong. You aren't passing the accumulator (in this case, result) to the right side of the tree. The reducer fn takes in the accumulator result and a node value, but you are calling it with result and the reduction of tree.right

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:30











  • though I can see now that it probably can be done with a return value instead of side effects, it will probably require a helper function, because you somehow have to pass the accumulator to the right side of the tree, so the helper function needs to take it in as an argument

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:32











  • True, I had taken the addition from your example, but to have in-order accumulation, you would have to pass the previous value as argument. I updated my answer.

    – trincot
    Nov 16 '18 at 8:01











  • ok so I was partially right, you had to pass the accumulator in as an argument, but you didn't need a helper function, which is nice. I feel like the "concise" version is kinda hard to read, but the first version has comparable readability as my original wrapper-based code, and has no side-effects, so I'm going to accept this answer. I have a feeling there are other examples that are not as easy to convert to return-style, but I will have to think about it more

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 14:05



















  • I am not sure if that would work, and it's a bit hard to explain why, so sorry if I get it wrong. You aren't passing the accumulator (in this case, result) to the right side of the tree. The reducer fn takes in the accumulator result and a node value, but you are calling it with result and the reduction of tree.right

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:30











  • though I can see now that it probably can be done with a return value instead of side effects, it will probably require a helper function, because you somehow have to pass the accumulator to the right side of the tree, so the helper function needs to take it in as an argument

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 2:32











  • True, I had taken the addition from your example, but to have in-order accumulation, you would have to pass the previous value as argument. I updated my answer.

    – trincot
    Nov 16 '18 at 8:01











  • ok so I was partially right, you had to pass the accumulator in as an argument, but you didn't need a helper function, which is nice. I feel like the "concise" version is kinda hard to read, but the first version has comparable readability as my original wrapper-based code, and has no side-effects, so I'm going to accept this answer. I have a feeling there are other examples that are not as easy to convert to return-style, but I will have to think about it more

    – woojoo666
    Nov 16 '18 at 14:05

















I am not sure if that would work, and it's a bit hard to explain why, so sorry if I get it wrong. You aren't passing the accumulator (in this case, result) to the right side of the tree. The reducer fn takes in the accumulator result and a node value, but you are calling it with result and the reduction of tree.right

– woojoo666
Nov 16 '18 at 2:30





I am not sure if that would work, and it's a bit hard to explain why, so sorry if I get it wrong. You aren't passing the accumulator (in this case, result) to the right side of the tree. The reducer fn takes in the accumulator result and a node value, but you are calling it with result and the reduction of tree.right

– woojoo666
Nov 16 '18 at 2:30













though I can see now that it probably can be done with a return value instead of side effects, it will probably require a helper function, because you somehow have to pass the accumulator to the right side of the tree, so the helper function needs to take it in as an argument

– woojoo666
Nov 16 '18 at 2:32





though I can see now that it probably can be done with a return value instead of side effects, it will probably require a helper function, because you somehow have to pass the accumulator to the right side of the tree, so the helper function needs to take it in as an argument

– woojoo666
Nov 16 '18 at 2:32













True, I had taken the addition from your example, but to have in-order accumulation, you would have to pass the previous value as argument. I updated my answer.

– trincot
Nov 16 '18 at 8:01





True, I had taken the addition from your example, but to have in-order accumulation, you would have to pass the previous value as argument. I updated my answer.

– trincot
Nov 16 '18 at 8:01













ok so I was partially right, you had to pass the accumulator in as an argument, but you didn't need a helper function, which is nice. I feel like the "concise" version is kinda hard to read, but the first version has comparable readability as my original wrapper-based code, and has no side-effects, so I'm going to accept this answer. I have a feeling there are other examples that are not as easy to convert to return-style, but I will have to think about it more

– woojoo666
Nov 16 '18 at 14:05





ok so I was partially right, you had to pass the accumulator in as an argument, but you didn't need a helper function, which is nice. I feel like the "concise" version is kinda hard to read, but the first version has comparable readability as my original wrapper-based code, and has no side-effects, so I'm going to accept this answer. I have a feeling there are other examples that are not as easy to convert to return-style, but I will have to think about it more

– woojoo666
Nov 16 '18 at 14:05




















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%2f53312859%2fmimicking-pass-by-reference-in-python-javascript-using-wrappers-good-practice%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

Xamarin.iOS Cant Deploy on Iphone

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } -1 I have a windows laptop and a mac mini my problem is that It wont deploy on iphone if I use Visual Studio Xamarin on windows to install my app, but it works fine with Visual Studio For Mac. Here's what I get after build succeded on Visual Studio Xamarin on windows : 1>------ Build started: Project: FinalCustomerApp.iOS, Configuration: Debug iPhone ------ 1> Connecting to Mac server 192.168.8.100... 1> FinalCustomerApp.iOS -> C:UsersJeremy PaulDesktopFinalCustomerAppFinalCustomerAppFinalCustomerApp.iOSbiniPhoneDebugFinalCustomerApp.iOS.exe 1> Detected signing identity: 1> Code Signing Key: &quo
Read more

Glorious Revolution

Image
"The Bloodless Revolution" redirects here. For a history of the vegetarian movement, see The Bloodless Revolution (book). This article is about the English revolution of 1688. For the revolution of 1868 in Spain, see Glorious Revolution (Spain). For other uses, see Glorious Revolution (disambiguation). Glorious Revolution The Prince of Orange lands at Torbay Date 1688–1689 Location British Isles Also known as Revolution of 1688 War of the English Succession Bloodless Revolution Participants English, Welsh and Scottish society, Dutch forces Outcome Replacement of James II by William III and Mary II Jacobite rising of 1689 Williamite War in Ireland War with France; England and Scotland join Grand Alliance Drafting of the Bill of Rights 1689 Part of a series on the History of England Timeline Prehistoric Britain Roman Britain Sub-Roman Britain Medieval period Economy in the Middle Ages Anglo-Saxon period
Read more

Dulmage-Mendelsohn matrix decomposition in Python

Image
0 Matlab has a function called dmperm that computes the so-called Dulmage–Mendelsohn decomposition of a n x n matrix. From wikipedia, the Dulmage–Mendelsohn is a partition of the vertices of a bipartite graph into subsets, with the property that two adjacent vertices belong to the same subset if and only if they are paired with each other in a perfect matching of the graph. Looking both on scipy and numpy, I could not find this function, nor some similar version. Is it possible to implement it using basic linear algebra operations? Any idea if this is implemented in some Python package? python matlab linear-algebra graph-theory matrix-decomposition share | improve this question
Read more