Why does Python allow out-of-range slice indexes for sequences?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}







70















So I just came across what seems to me like a strange Python feature and wanted some clarification about it.



The following array manipulation somewhat makes sense:



p = [1,2,3]
p[3:] = [4]
p = [1,2,3,4]


I imagine it is actually just appending this value to the end, correct?

Why can I do this, however?



p[20:22] = [5,6]
p = [1,2,3,4,5,6]


And even more so this:



p[20:100] = [7,8]
p = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]


This just seems like wrong logic. It seems like this should throw an error!



Any explanation?

-Is it just a weird thing Python does?

-Is there a purpose to it?

-Or am I thinking about this the wrong way?










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    In other languages I always end up writing this kind of stuff all over the place: if i > sequence.length(): return sequence.slice(0, sequence.length()) else sequence.slice(0, n) This is exactly the same as just using sequence[:n] in Python it saves you an if statement and 2 calls to length.

    – Bakuriu
    Feb 10 at 22:14






  • 3





    BTW. You can look at slices as "sets". So p[20:22] is a sequence of all elements with indices between 20 and 22. The empty set is a valid set. That is way different than saying p[20] which asserts the existence of element with index 20. Hence the difference in range-checking between looking up an element vs a slice reflects the two different meanings.

    – Bakuriu
    Feb 10 at 22:18






  • 2





    I think this a broader question about why adding sequences in slices of sequences that are of different length is allowed in Python and what are its benefits. The other question does not address at all the assignment part of this question. It just talks about the slicing.

    – Akaisteph7
    Feb 11 at 6:03


















70















So I just came across what seems to me like a strange Python feature and wanted some clarification about it.



The following array manipulation somewhat makes sense:



p = [1,2,3]
p[3:] = [4]
p = [1,2,3,4]


I imagine it is actually just appending this value to the end, correct?

Why can I do this, however?



p[20:22] = [5,6]
p = [1,2,3,4,5,6]


And even more so this:



p[20:100] = [7,8]
p = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]


This just seems like wrong logic. It seems like this should throw an error!



Any explanation?

-Is it just a weird thing Python does?

-Is there a purpose to it?

-Or am I thinking about this the wrong way?










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    In other languages I always end up writing this kind of stuff all over the place: if i > sequence.length(): return sequence.slice(0, sequence.length()) else sequence.slice(0, n) This is exactly the same as just using sequence[:n] in Python it saves you an if statement and 2 calls to length.

    – Bakuriu
    Feb 10 at 22:14






  • 3





    BTW. You can look at slices as "sets". So p[20:22] is a sequence of all elements with indices between 20 and 22. The empty set is a valid set. That is way different than saying p[20] which asserts the existence of element with index 20. Hence the difference in range-checking between looking up an element vs a slice reflects the two different meanings.

    – Bakuriu
    Feb 10 at 22:18






  • 2





    I think this a broader question about why adding sequences in slices of sequences that are of different length is allowed in Python and what are its benefits. The other question does not address at all the assignment part of this question. It just talks about the slicing.

    – Akaisteph7
    Feb 11 at 6:03














70












70








70


12






So I just came across what seems to me like a strange Python feature and wanted some clarification about it.



The following array manipulation somewhat makes sense:



p = [1,2,3]
p[3:] = [4]
p = [1,2,3,4]


I imagine it is actually just appending this value to the end, correct?

Why can I do this, however?



p[20:22] = [5,6]
p = [1,2,3,4,5,6]


And even more so this:



p[20:100] = [7,8]
p = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]


This just seems like wrong logic. It seems like this should throw an error!



Any explanation?

-Is it just a weird thing Python does?

-Is there a purpose to it?

-Or am I thinking about this the wrong way?










share|improve this question
















So I just came across what seems to me like a strange Python feature and wanted some clarification about it.



The following array manipulation somewhat makes sense:



p = [1,2,3]
p[3:] = [4]
p = [1,2,3,4]


I imagine it is actually just appending this value to the end, correct?

Why can I do this, however?



p[20:22] = [5,6]
p = [1,2,3,4,5,6]


And even more so this:



p[20:100] = [7,8]
p = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]


This just seems like wrong logic. It seems like this should throw an error!



Any explanation?

-Is it just a weird thing Python does?

-Is there a purpose to it?

-Or am I thinking about this the wrong way?







python python-3.x sequence slice range-checking






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Feb 10 at 7:45







Akaisteph7

















asked Feb 10 at 5:52









Akaisteph7Akaisteph7

473410




473410








  • 2





    In other languages I always end up writing this kind of stuff all over the place: if i > sequence.length(): return sequence.slice(0, sequence.length()) else sequence.slice(0, n) This is exactly the same as just using sequence[:n] in Python it saves you an if statement and 2 calls to length.

    – Bakuriu
    Feb 10 at 22:14






  • 3





    BTW. You can look at slices as "sets". So p[20:22] is a sequence of all elements with indices between 20 and 22. The empty set is a valid set. That is way different than saying p[20] which asserts the existence of element with index 20. Hence the difference in range-checking between looking up an element vs a slice reflects the two different meanings.

    – Bakuriu
    Feb 10 at 22:18






  • 2





    I think this a broader question about why adding sequences in slices of sequences that are of different length is allowed in Python and what are its benefits. The other question does not address at all the assignment part of this question. It just talks about the slicing.

    – Akaisteph7
    Feb 11 at 6:03














  • 2





    In other languages I always end up writing this kind of stuff all over the place: if i > sequence.length(): return sequence.slice(0, sequence.length()) else sequence.slice(0, n) This is exactly the same as just using sequence[:n] in Python it saves you an if statement and 2 calls to length.

    – Bakuriu
    Feb 10 at 22:14






  • 3





    BTW. You can look at slices as "sets". So p[20:22] is a sequence of all elements with indices between 20 and 22. The empty set is a valid set. That is way different than saying p[20] which asserts the existence of element with index 20. Hence the difference in range-checking between looking up an element vs a slice reflects the two different meanings.

    – Bakuriu
    Feb 10 at 22:18






  • 2





    I think this a broader question about why adding sequences in slices of sequences that are of different length is allowed in Python and what are its benefits. The other question does not address at all the assignment part of this question. It just talks about the slicing.

    – Akaisteph7
    Feb 11 at 6:03








2




2





In other languages I always end up writing this kind of stuff all over the place: if i > sequence.length(): return sequence.slice(0, sequence.length()) else sequence.slice(0, n) This is exactly the same as just using sequence[:n] in Python it saves you an if statement and 2 calls to length.

– Bakuriu
Feb 10 at 22:14





In other languages I always end up writing this kind of stuff all over the place: if i > sequence.length(): return sequence.slice(0, sequence.length()) else sequence.slice(0, n) This is exactly the same as just using sequence[:n] in Python it saves you an if statement and 2 calls to length.

– Bakuriu
Feb 10 at 22:14




3




3





BTW. You can look at slices as "sets". So p[20:22] is a sequence of all elements with indices between 20 and 22. The empty set is a valid set. That is way different than saying p[20] which asserts the existence of element with index 20. Hence the difference in range-checking between looking up an element vs a slice reflects the two different meanings.

– Bakuriu
Feb 10 at 22:18





BTW. You can look at slices as "sets". So p[20:22] is a sequence of all elements with indices between 20 and 22. The empty set is a valid set. That is way different than saying p[20] which asserts the existence of element with index 20. Hence the difference in range-checking between looking up an element vs a slice reflects the two different meanings.

– Bakuriu
Feb 10 at 22:18




2




2





I think this a broader question about why adding sequences in slices of sequences that are of different length is allowed in Python and what are its benefits. The other question does not address at all the assignment part of this question. It just talks about the slicing.

– Akaisteph7
Feb 11 at 6:03





I think this a broader question about why adding sequences in slices of sequences that are of different length is allowed in Python and what are its benefits. The other question does not address at all the assignment part of this question. It just talks about the slicing.

– Akaisteph7
Feb 11 at 6:03












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















74














Part of question regarding out-of-range indices



Slice logic automatically clips the indices to the length of the sequence.



Allowing slice indices to extend past end points was done for convenience. It would be a pain to have to range check every expression and then adjust the limits manually, so Python does it for you.



Consider the use case of wanting to display no more than the first 50 characters of a text message.



The easy way (what Python does now):



preview = msg[:50]


Or the hard way (do the limit checks yourself):



n = len(msg)
preview = msg[:50] if n > 50 else msg


Manually implementing that logic for adjustment of end points would be easy to forget, would be easy to get wrong (updating the 50 in two places), would be wordy, and would be slow. Python moves that logic to its internals where it is succint, automatic, fast, and correct. This is one of the reasons I love Python :-)



Part of question regarding assignments length mismatch from input length



The OP also wanted to know the rationale for allowing assignments such as p[20:100] = [7,8] where the assignment target has a different length (80) than the replacement data length (2).



It's easiest to see the motivation by an analogy with strings. Consider, "five little monkeys".replace("little", "humongous"). Note that the target "little" has only six letters and "humongous" has nine. We can do the same with lists:



>>> s = list("five little monkeys")
>>> i = s.index('l')
>>> n = len('little')
>>> s[i : i+n ] = list("humongous")
>>> ''.join(s)
'five humongous monkeys'


This all comes down to convenience.



Prior to the introduction of the copy() and clear() methods, these used to be popular idioms:



s[:] =            # clear a list
t = u[:] # copy a list


Even now, we use this to update lists when filtering:



s[:] = [x for x in s if not math.isnan(x)]   # filter-out NaN values


Hope these practical examples give a good perspective on why slicing works as it does.






share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    "Even now, we use this to update lists when filtering [example using s[:]]" — Could you expand on why you'd use s[:] = there, instead of just s =? I've never seen anyone use s[:] = in the context of a line such as what you wrote there. Good answer otherwise!

    – Quuxplusone
    Feb 10 at 21:44






  • 7





    @Quuxplusone: Slice assignment mutates the list already referenced by s; using s = re-binds s to refer to a new list. If the list can be reached via multiple names, and you want the mutation to be visible to all the names, slice assignment is what you want. Also, if s were global, reassigning s would require a global declaration, but slice assignment would have a similar effect even without the global statement.

    – Daniel Pryden
    Feb 11 at 0:29





















20














The documentation has your answer:




s[i:j]: slice of s from i to j (note (4))



(4) The slice of s from i to j is defined as the sequence of items
with index k such that i <= k < j. If i or j is greater than
len(s), use len(s). If i is omitted or None, use 0. If j
is omitted or None, use len(s). If i is greater than or equal to
j, the slice is empty.




The documentation of IndexError confirms this behavior:




exception IndexError



Raised when a sequence subscript is out of range. (Slice indices are silently truncated to fall in the allowed range; if an index is
not an integer, TypeError is raised.)




Essentially, stuff like p[20:100] is being reduced to p[len(p):len(p]. p[len(p):len(p] is an empty slice at the end of the list, and assigning a list to it will modify the end of the list to contain said list. Thus, it works like appending/extending the original list.



This behavior is the same as what happens when you assign a list to an empty slice anywhere in the original list. For example:



In [1]: p = [1, 2, 3, 4]

In [2]: p[2:2] = [42, 42, 42]

In [3]: p
Out[3]: [1, 2, 42, 42, 42, 3, 4]





share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    I don't think OP is asking how slicing works, he's asking for the rationale behind the design choice.

    – Primusa
    Feb 10 at 6:10






  • 2





    @Primusa - I believe they're asking both. This explains the how, which is good to know because it explains why the behavior isn't broken. The why is probably buried in the depths of one of the mailing lists somewhere.

    – g.d.d.c
    Feb 10 at 6:14











  • Good answer but this doesn't explain why the new numbers get appended to the end of the list.

    – Atirag
    Feb 10 at 6:15






  • 1





    @Atirag I added a small blurb about it for completeness.

    – Tomothy32
    Feb 10 at 6:22






  • 1





    @Atirag Indexing is very different from slicing; indexing always refers to values.

    – Tomothy32
    Feb 10 at 6:30










protected by U9-Forward Feb 13 at 2:24



Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









74














Part of question regarding out-of-range indices



Slice logic automatically clips the indices to the length of the sequence.



Allowing slice indices to extend past end points was done for convenience. It would be a pain to have to range check every expression and then adjust the limits manually, so Python does it for you.



Consider the use case of wanting to display no more than the first 50 characters of a text message.



The easy way (what Python does now):



preview = msg[:50]


Or the hard way (do the limit checks yourself):



n = len(msg)
preview = msg[:50] if n > 50 else msg


Manually implementing that logic for adjustment of end points would be easy to forget, would be easy to get wrong (updating the 50 in two places), would be wordy, and would be slow. Python moves that logic to its internals where it is succint, automatic, fast, and correct. This is one of the reasons I love Python :-)



Part of question regarding assignments length mismatch from input length



The OP also wanted to know the rationale for allowing assignments such as p[20:100] = [7,8] where the assignment target has a different length (80) than the replacement data length (2).



It's easiest to see the motivation by an analogy with strings. Consider, "five little monkeys".replace("little", "humongous"). Note that the target "little" has only six letters and "humongous" has nine. We can do the same with lists:



>>> s = list("five little monkeys")
>>> i = s.index('l')
>>> n = len('little')
>>> s[i : i+n ] = list("humongous")
>>> ''.join(s)
'five humongous monkeys'


This all comes down to convenience.



Prior to the introduction of the copy() and clear() methods, these used to be popular idioms:



s[:] =            # clear a list
t = u[:] # copy a list


Even now, we use this to update lists when filtering:



s[:] = [x for x in s if not math.isnan(x)]   # filter-out NaN values


Hope these practical examples give a good perspective on why slicing works as it does.






share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    "Even now, we use this to update lists when filtering [example using s[:]]" — Could you expand on why you'd use s[:] = there, instead of just s =? I've never seen anyone use s[:] = in the context of a line such as what you wrote there. Good answer otherwise!

    – Quuxplusone
    Feb 10 at 21:44






  • 7





    @Quuxplusone: Slice assignment mutates the list already referenced by s; using s = re-binds s to refer to a new list. If the list can be reached via multiple names, and you want the mutation to be visible to all the names, slice assignment is what you want. Also, if s were global, reassigning s would require a global declaration, but slice assignment would have a similar effect even without the global statement.

    – Daniel Pryden
    Feb 11 at 0:29


















74














Part of question regarding out-of-range indices



Slice logic automatically clips the indices to the length of the sequence.



Allowing slice indices to extend past end points was done for convenience. It would be a pain to have to range check every expression and then adjust the limits manually, so Python does it for you.



Consider the use case of wanting to display no more than the first 50 characters of a text message.



The easy way (what Python does now):



preview = msg[:50]


Or the hard way (do the limit checks yourself):



n = len(msg)
preview = msg[:50] if n > 50 else msg


Manually implementing that logic for adjustment of end points would be easy to forget, would be easy to get wrong (updating the 50 in two places), would be wordy, and would be slow. Python moves that logic to its internals where it is succint, automatic, fast, and correct. This is one of the reasons I love Python :-)



Part of question regarding assignments length mismatch from input length



The OP also wanted to know the rationale for allowing assignments such as p[20:100] = [7,8] where the assignment target has a different length (80) than the replacement data length (2).



It's easiest to see the motivation by an analogy with strings. Consider, "five little monkeys".replace("little", "humongous"). Note that the target "little" has only six letters and "humongous" has nine. We can do the same with lists:



>>> s = list("five little monkeys")
>>> i = s.index('l')
>>> n = len('little')
>>> s[i : i+n ] = list("humongous")
>>> ''.join(s)
'five humongous monkeys'


This all comes down to convenience.



Prior to the introduction of the copy() and clear() methods, these used to be popular idioms:



s[:] =            # clear a list
t = u[:] # copy a list


Even now, we use this to update lists when filtering:



s[:] = [x for x in s if not math.isnan(x)]   # filter-out NaN values


Hope these practical examples give a good perspective on why slicing works as it does.






share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    "Even now, we use this to update lists when filtering [example using s[:]]" — Could you expand on why you'd use s[:] = there, instead of just s =? I've never seen anyone use s[:] = in the context of a line such as what you wrote there. Good answer otherwise!

    – Quuxplusone
    Feb 10 at 21:44






  • 7





    @Quuxplusone: Slice assignment mutates the list already referenced by s; using s = re-binds s to refer to a new list. If the list can be reached via multiple names, and you want the mutation to be visible to all the names, slice assignment is what you want. Also, if s were global, reassigning s would require a global declaration, but slice assignment would have a similar effect even without the global statement.

    – Daniel Pryden
    Feb 11 at 0:29
















74












74








74







Part of question regarding out-of-range indices



Slice logic automatically clips the indices to the length of the sequence.



Allowing slice indices to extend past end points was done for convenience. It would be a pain to have to range check every expression and then adjust the limits manually, so Python does it for you.



Consider the use case of wanting to display no more than the first 50 characters of a text message.



The easy way (what Python does now):



preview = msg[:50]


Or the hard way (do the limit checks yourself):



n = len(msg)
preview = msg[:50] if n > 50 else msg


Manually implementing that logic for adjustment of end points would be easy to forget, would be easy to get wrong (updating the 50 in two places), would be wordy, and would be slow. Python moves that logic to its internals where it is succint, automatic, fast, and correct. This is one of the reasons I love Python :-)



Part of question regarding assignments length mismatch from input length



The OP also wanted to know the rationale for allowing assignments such as p[20:100] = [7,8] where the assignment target has a different length (80) than the replacement data length (2).



It's easiest to see the motivation by an analogy with strings. Consider, "five little monkeys".replace("little", "humongous"). Note that the target "little" has only six letters and "humongous" has nine. We can do the same with lists:



>>> s = list("five little monkeys")
>>> i = s.index('l')
>>> n = len('little')
>>> s[i : i+n ] = list("humongous")
>>> ''.join(s)
'five humongous monkeys'


This all comes down to convenience.



Prior to the introduction of the copy() and clear() methods, these used to be popular idioms:



s[:] =            # clear a list
t = u[:] # copy a list


Even now, we use this to update lists when filtering:



s[:] = [x for x in s if not math.isnan(x)]   # filter-out NaN values


Hope these practical examples give a good perspective on why slicing works as it does.






share|improve this answer















Part of question regarding out-of-range indices



Slice logic automatically clips the indices to the length of the sequence.



Allowing slice indices to extend past end points was done for convenience. It would be a pain to have to range check every expression and then adjust the limits manually, so Python does it for you.



Consider the use case of wanting to display no more than the first 50 characters of a text message.



The easy way (what Python does now):



preview = msg[:50]


Or the hard way (do the limit checks yourself):



n = len(msg)
preview = msg[:50] if n > 50 else msg


Manually implementing that logic for adjustment of end points would be easy to forget, would be easy to get wrong (updating the 50 in two places), would be wordy, and would be slow. Python moves that logic to its internals where it is succint, automatic, fast, and correct. This is one of the reasons I love Python :-)



Part of question regarding assignments length mismatch from input length



The OP also wanted to know the rationale for allowing assignments such as p[20:100] = [7,8] where the assignment target has a different length (80) than the replacement data length (2).



It's easiest to see the motivation by an analogy with strings. Consider, "five little monkeys".replace("little", "humongous"). Note that the target "little" has only six letters and "humongous" has nine. We can do the same with lists:



>>> s = list("five little monkeys")
>>> i = s.index('l')
>>> n = len('little')
>>> s[i : i+n ] = list("humongous")
>>> ''.join(s)
'five humongous monkeys'


This all comes down to convenience.



Prior to the introduction of the copy() and clear() methods, these used to be popular idioms:



s[:] =            # clear a list
t = u[:] # copy a list


Even now, we use this to update lists when filtering:



s[:] = [x for x in s if not math.isnan(x)]   # filter-out NaN values


Hope these practical examples give a good perspective on why slicing works as it does.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Feb 10 at 9:32









ukemi

3,2153728




3,2153728










answered Feb 10 at 6:16









Raymond HettingerRaymond Hettinger

136k40259353




136k40259353








  • 2





    "Even now, we use this to update lists when filtering [example using s[:]]" — Could you expand on why you'd use s[:] = there, instead of just s =? I've never seen anyone use s[:] = in the context of a line such as what you wrote there. Good answer otherwise!

    – Quuxplusone
    Feb 10 at 21:44






  • 7





    @Quuxplusone: Slice assignment mutates the list already referenced by s; using s = re-binds s to refer to a new list. If the list can be reached via multiple names, and you want the mutation to be visible to all the names, slice assignment is what you want. Also, if s were global, reassigning s would require a global declaration, but slice assignment would have a similar effect even without the global statement.

    – Daniel Pryden
    Feb 11 at 0:29
















  • 2





    "Even now, we use this to update lists when filtering [example using s[:]]" — Could you expand on why you'd use s[:] = there, instead of just s =? I've never seen anyone use s[:] = in the context of a line such as what you wrote there. Good answer otherwise!

    – Quuxplusone
    Feb 10 at 21:44






  • 7





    @Quuxplusone: Slice assignment mutates the list already referenced by s; using s = re-binds s to refer to a new list. If the list can be reached via multiple names, and you want the mutation to be visible to all the names, slice assignment is what you want. Also, if s were global, reassigning s would require a global declaration, but slice assignment would have a similar effect even without the global statement.

    – Daniel Pryden
    Feb 11 at 0:29










2




2





"Even now, we use this to update lists when filtering [example using s[:]]" — Could you expand on why you'd use s[:] = there, instead of just s =? I've never seen anyone use s[:] = in the context of a line such as what you wrote there. Good answer otherwise!

– Quuxplusone
Feb 10 at 21:44





"Even now, we use this to update lists when filtering [example using s[:]]" — Could you expand on why you'd use s[:] = there, instead of just s =? I've never seen anyone use s[:] = in the context of a line such as what you wrote there. Good answer otherwise!

– Quuxplusone
Feb 10 at 21:44




7




7





@Quuxplusone: Slice assignment mutates the list already referenced by s; using s = re-binds s to refer to a new list. If the list can be reached via multiple names, and you want the mutation to be visible to all the names, slice assignment is what you want. Also, if s were global, reassigning s would require a global declaration, but slice assignment would have a similar effect even without the global statement.

– Daniel Pryden
Feb 11 at 0:29







@Quuxplusone: Slice assignment mutates the list already referenced by s; using s = re-binds s to refer to a new list. If the list can be reached via multiple names, and you want the mutation to be visible to all the names, slice assignment is what you want. Also, if s were global, reassigning s would require a global declaration, but slice assignment would have a similar effect even without the global statement.

– Daniel Pryden
Feb 11 at 0:29















20














The documentation has your answer:




s[i:j]: slice of s from i to j (note (4))



(4) The slice of s from i to j is defined as the sequence of items
with index k such that i <= k < j. If i or j is greater than
len(s), use len(s). If i is omitted or None, use 0. If j
is omitted or None, use len(s). If i is greater than or equal to
j, the slice is empty.




The documentation of IndexError confirms this behavior:




exception IndexError



Raised when a sequence subscript is out of range. (Slice indices are silently truncated to fall in the allowed range; if an index is
not an integer, TypeError is raised.)




Essentially, stuff like p[20:100] is being reduced to p[len(p):len(p]. p[len(p):len(p] is an empty slice at the end of the list, and assigning a list to it will modify the end of the list to contain said list. Thus, it works like appending/extending the original list.



This behavior is the same as what happens when you assign a list to an empty slice anywhere in the original list. For example:



In [1]: p = [1, 2, 3, 4]

In [2]: p[2:2] = [42, 42, 42]

In [3]: p
Out[3]: [1, 2, 42, 42, 42, 3, 4]





share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    I don't think OP is asking how slicing works, he's asking for the rationale behind the design choice.

    – Primusa
    Feb 10 at 6:10






  • 2





    @Primusa - I believe they're asking both. This explains the how, which is good to know because it explains why the behavior isn't broken. The why is probably buried in the depths of one of the mailing lists somewhere.

    – g.d.d.c
    Feb 10 at 6:14











  • Good answer but this doesn't explain why the new numbers get appended to the end of the list.

    – Atirag
    Feb 10 at 6:15






  • 1





    @Atirag I added a small blurb about it for completeness.

    – Tomothy32
    Feb 10 at 6:22






  • 1





    @Atirag Indexing is very different from slicing; indexing always refers to values.

    – Tomothy32
    Feb 10 at 6:30
















20














The documentation has your answer:




s[i:j]: slice of s from i to j (note (4))



(4) The slice of s from i to j is defined as the sequence of items
with index k such that i <= k < j. If i or j is greater than
len(s), use len(s). If i is omitted or None, use 0. If j
is omitted or None, use len(s). If i is greater than or equal to
j, the slice is empty.




The documentation of IndexError confirms this behavior:




exception IndexError



Raised when a sequence subscript is out of range. (Slice indices are silently truncated to fall in the allowed range; if an index is
not an integer, TypeError is raised.)




Essentially, stuff like p[20:100] is being reduced to p[len(p):len(p]. p[len(p):len(p] is an empty slice at the end of the list, and assigning a list to it will modify the end of the list to contain said list. Thus, it works like appending/extending the original list.



This behavior is the same as what happens when you assign a list to an empty slice anywhere in the original list. For example:



In [1]: p = [1, 2, 3, 4]

In [2]: p[2:2] = [42, 42, 42]

In [3]: p
Out[3]: [1, 2, 42, 42, 42, 3, 4]





share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    I don't think OP is asking how slicing works, he's asking for the rationale behind the design choice.

    – Primusa
    Feb 10 at 6:10






  • 2





    @Primusa - I believe they're asking both. This explains the how, which is good to know because it explains why the behavior isn't broken. The why is probably buried in the depths of one of the mailing lists somewhere.

    – g.d.d.c
    Feb 10 at 6:14











  • Good answer but this doesn't explain why the new numbers get appended to the end of the list.

    – Atirag
    Feb 10 at 6:15






  • 1





    @Atirag I added a small blurb about it for completeness.

    – Tomothy32
    Feb 10 at 6:22






  • 1





    @Atirag Indexing is very different from slicing; indexing always refers to values.

    – Tomothy32
    Feb 10 at 6:30














20












20








20







The documentation has your answer:




s[i:j]: slice of s from i to j (note (4))



(4) The slice of s from i to j is defined as the sequence of items
with index k such that i <= k < j. If i or j is greater than
len(s), use len(s). If i is omitted or None, use 0. If j
is omitted or None, use len(s). If i is greater than or equal to
j, the slice is empty.




The documentation of IndexError confirms this behavior:




exception IndexError



Raised when a sequence subscript is out of range. (Slice indices are silently truncated to fall in the allowed range; if an index is
not an integer, TypeError is raised.)




Essentially, stuff like p[20:100] is being reduced to p[len(p):len(p]. p[len(p):len(p] is an empty slice at the end of the list, and assigning a list to it will modify the end of the list to contain said list. Thus, it works like appending/extending the original list.



This behavior is the same as what happens when you assign a list to an empty slice anywhere in the original list. For example:



In [1]: p = [1, 2, 3, 4]

In [2]: p[2:2] = [42, 42, 42]

In [3]: p
Out[3]: [1, 2, 42, 42, 42, 3, 4]





share|improve this answer















The documentation has your answer:




s[i:j]: slice of s from i to j (note (4))



(4) The slice of s from i to j is defined as the sequence of items
with index k such that i <= k < j. If i or j is greater than
len(s), use len(s). If i is omitted or None, use 0. If j
is omitted or None, use len(s). If i is greater than or equal to
j, the slice is empty.




The documentation of IndexError confirms this behavior:




exception IndexError



Raised when a sequence subscript is out of range. (Slice indices are silently truncated to fall in the allowed range; if an index is
not an integer, TypeError is raised.)




Essentially, stuff like p[20:100] is being reduced to p[len(p):len(p]. p[len(p):len(p] is an empty slice at the end of the list, and assigning a list to it will modify the end of the list to contain said list. Thus, it works like appending/extending the original list.



This behavior is the same as what happens when you assign a list to an empty slice anywhere in the original list. For example:



In [1]: p = [1, 2, 3, 4]

In [2]: p[2:2] = [42, 42, 42]

In [3]: p
Out[3]: [1, 2, 42, 42, 42, 3, 4]






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Feb 10 at 6:25

























answered Feb 10 at 6:09









Tomothy32Tomothy32

8,8162828




8,8162828








  • 3





    I don't think OP is asking how slicing works, he's asking for the rationale behind the design choice.

    – Primusa
    Feb 10 at 6:10






  • 2





    @Primusa - I believe they're asking both. This explains the how, which is good to know because it explains why the behavior isn't broken. The why is probably buried in the depths of one of the mailing lists somewhere.

    – g.d.d.c
    Feb 10 at 6:14











  • Good answer but this doesn't explain why the new numbers get appended to the end of the list.

    – Atirag
    Feb 10 at 6:15






  • 1





    @Atirag I added a small blurb about it for completeness.

    – Tomothy32
    Feb 10 at 6:22






  • 1





    @Atirag Indexing is very different from slicing; indexing always refers to values.

    – Tomothy32
    Feb 10 at 6:30














  • 3





    I don't think OP is asking how slicing works, he's asking for the rationale behind the design choice.

    – Primusa
    Feb 10 at 6:10






  • 2





    @Primusa - I believe they're asking both. This explains the how, which is good to know because it explains why the behavior isn't broken. The why is probably buried in the depths of one of the mailing lists somewhere.

    – g.d.d.c
    Feb 10 at 6:14











  • Good answer but this doesn't explain why the new numbers get appended to the end of the list.

    – Atirag
    Feb 10 at 6:15






  • 1





    @Atirag I added a small blurb about it for completeness.

    – Tomothy32
    Feb 10 at 6:22






  • 1





    @Atirag Indexing is very different from slicing; indexing always refers to values.

    – Tomothy32
    Feb 10 at 6:30








3




3





I don't think OP is asking how slicing works, he's asking for the rationale behind the design choice.

– Primusa
Feb 10 at 6:10





I don't think OP is asking how slicing works, he's asking for the rationale behind the design choice.

– Primusa
Feb 10 at 6:10




2




2





@Primusa - I believe they're asking both. This explains the how, which is good to know because it explains why the behavior isn't broken. The why is probably buried in the depths of one of the mailing lists somewhere.

– g.d.d.c
Feb 10 at 6:14





@Primusa - I believe they're asking both. This explains the how, which is good to know because it explains why the behavior isn't broken. The why is probably buried in the depths of one of the mailing lists somewhere.

– g.d.d.c
Feb 10 at 6:14













Good answer but this doesn't explain why the new numbers get appended to the end of the list.

– Atirag
Feb 10 at 6:15





Good answer but this doesn't explain why the new numbers get appended to the end of the list.

– Atirag
Feb 10 at 6:15




1




1





@Atirag I added a small blurb about it for completeness.

– Tomothy32
Feb 10 at 6:22





@Atirag I added a small blurb about it for completeness.

– Tomothy32
Feb 10 at 6:22




1




1





@Atirag Indexing is very different from slicing; indexing always refers to values.

– Tomothy32
Feb 10 at 6:30





@Atirag Indexing is very different from slicing; indexing always refers to values.

– Tomothy32
Feb 10 at 6:30





protected by U9-Forward Feb 13 at 2:24



Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



Popular posts from this blog

Human spaceflight

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

張江高科駅