ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How to reverse a list?

How do I iterate over a list in reverse in Python?

array = [0, 10, 20, 40]
for (i = array.length() - 1; i >= 0; i--)

M
Mateen Ulhaq

Use the reversed function:

>>> xs = [0, 10, 20, 40]
>>> for i in reversed(xs):
...     print(i)

To get a reversed list:

>>> list(reversed(xs))
[40, 20, 10, 0]

can't you just use: array[::-1] ?
@kdlannoy According to the page linked to in the answer, "Compared to extended slicing, such as range(1,4)[::-1], reversed() is easier to read, runs faster, and uses substantially less memory. "
When I tested this slicing was about twice as fast (when reversing a 10k elements list and creating a list from it). I did not test memory consumption though. reverse might be faster though, if you don't need to cast to list afterwards.
worth noting that this is not the same as reverse([1,2,3]), n.b. the 'd' at the end ... which is one of the other answers below, which does this in-place, whereas this returns an iterator.
Why use reversed() instead of slicing? Read the Zen of Python, rule number 7: Readability counts!
M
Mateen Ulhaq
>>> xs = [0, 10, 20, 40]
>>> xs[::-1]
[40, 20, 10, 0]

Extended slice syntax is explained here. See also, documentation.


It works for any interable, not just lists. Disadvantage is that it's not in place.
@Tim it returns a slice, so doesn't change the actual list contents
@Swiss Not in every iterable, for example, set is iterable, but not subscriptable.
@lunixbochs reversed returns an iterator and not a list in Python 3.
This works exactly for what OP wants, but it is very hacky, in a way that you have to use exactly L[::-1] and it won't take value for start, stop as slice method is defined with. Try with L[4:0:-1] and you will see problem.
g
ghostdog74
>>> L = [0,10,20,40]
>>> L.reverse()
>>> L
[40, 20, 10, 0]

Or

>>> L[::-1]
[40, 20, 10, 0]

[start:stop:step] so step is -1
Detail: The first modifies the list in-place, the second one just returns a new reversed list, but it doesn't modify the original one.
the second example should be L=L[::-1] to actually reverse the list otherwise you're only returning the values in reverse
let's say if i have l= [1,2,3,4,5,6] and n=2 them result must be [6,5,1,2,3,4], how can we do this
you could do this: b = l[-n:] b.reverse() l = b + l[:len(l) - n]
L
LightCC

Summary of Methods with Explanation and Timing Results

There are three different built-in ways to reverse a list. Which method is best depends on whether you need to:

Reverse an existing list in-place (altering the original list variable) Best solution is object.reverse() method Create an iterator of the reversed list (because you are going to feed it to a for-loop, a generator, etc.) Best solution is reversed(object) which creates the iterator Create a copy of the list, just in the reverse order (to preserve the original list) Best solution is using slices with a -1 step size: object[::-1]

From a speed perspective, it is best to use the above built-in functions to reverse a list. For reversing, they are 2 to 8 times faster on short lists (10 items), and up to ~300+ times faster on long lists compared to a manually-created loop or generator. This makes sense - they are written in a native language (i.e. C), have experts creating them, scrutiny, and optimization. They are also less prone to defects and more likely to handle edge and corner cases.

Test Script

Put all the code snippets in this answer together to make a script that will run the different ways of reversing a list that are described below. It will time each method while running it 100,000 times. The results are shown in the last section for lists of length 2, 10, and 1000 items.

from timeit import timeit
from copy import copy

def time_str_ms(t):
    return '{0:8.2f} ms'.format(t * 1000)

Method 1: Reverse in place with obj.reverse()

If the goal is just to reverse the order of the items in an existing list, without looping over them or getting a copy to work with, use the <list>.reverse() function. Run this directly on a list object, and the order of all items will be reversed:

Note that the following will reverse the original variable that is given, even though it also returns the reversed list back. i.e. you can create a copy by using this function output. Typically, you wouldn't make a function for this, but the timing script requires it.

We test the performance of this two ways - first just reversing a list in-place (changes the original list), and then copying the list and reversing it afterward to see if that is the fastest way to create a reversed copy compared to the other methods.

def rev_in_place(mylist):
    mylist.reverse()
    return mylist

def rev_copy_reverse(mylist):
    a = copy(mylist)
    a.reverse()
    return a

Method 2: Reverse a list using slices obj[::-1]

The built-in index slicing method allows you to make a copy of part of any indexed object.

It does not affect the original object

It builds a full list, not an iterator

The generic syntax is: <object>[first_index:last_index:step]. To exploit slicing to create a simple reversed list, use: <list>[::-1]. When leaving an option empty, it sets them to defaults of the first and last element of the object (reversed if the step size is negative).

Indexing allows one to use negative numbers, which count from the end of the object's index backwards (i.e. -2 is the second to last item). When the step size is negative, it will start with the last item and index backward by that amount.

def rev_slice(mylist):
    a = mylist[::-1]
    return a

Method 3: Reverse a list with the reversed(obj) iterator function

There is a reversed(indexed_object) function:

This creates a reverse index iterator, not a list. Great if you are feeding it to a loop for better performance on large lists

This creates a copy and does not affect the original object

Test with both a raw iterator, and creating a list from the iterator.

def reversed_iterator(mylist):
    a = reversed(mylist)
    return a

def reversed_with_list(mylist):
    a = list(reversed(mylist))
    return a

Method 4: Reverse list with Custom/Manual indexing

As the timing shows, creating your own methods of indexing is a bad idea. Use the built-in methods unless you really do need to do something custom. This simply means learning the built-in methods.

That said, there is not a huge penalty with smaller list sizes, but when you scale up the penalty becomes tremendous. The code below could be optimized, I'm sure, but it can't ever match the built-in methods as they are directly implemented in a native language.

def rev_manual_pos_gen(mylist):
    max_index = len(mylist) - 1
    return [ mylist[max_index - index] for index in range(len(mylist)) ]

def rev_manual_neg_gen(mylist):
    ## index is 0 to 9, but we need -1 to -10
    return [ mylist[-index-1] for index in range(len(mylist)) ]

def rev_manual_index_loop(mylist):
    a = []
    reverse_index = len(mylist) - 1
    for index in range(len(mylist)):
        a.append(mylist[reverse_index - index])
    return a
    
def rev_manual_loop(mylist):
    a = []
    reverse_index = len(mylist)
    for index, _ in enumerate(mylist):
        reverse_index -= 1
        a.append(mylist[reverse_index])
    return a

Timing each method

Following is the rest of the script to time each method of reversing. It shows reversing in place with obj.reverse() and creating the reversed(obj) iterator are always the fastest, while using slices is the fastest way to create a copy.

It also proves not to try to create a way of doing it on your own unless you have to!

loops_to_test = 100000
number_of_items = 10
list_to_reverse = list(range(number_of_items))
if number_of_items < 15:
    print("a: {}".format(list_to_reverse))
print('Loops: {:,}'.format(loops_to_test))
# List of the functions we want to test with the timer, in print order
fcns = [rev_in_place, reversed_iterator, rev_slice, rev_copy_reverse,
        reversed_with_list, rev_manual_pos_gen, rev_manual_neg_gen,
        rev_manual_index_loop, rev_manual_loop]
max_name_string = max([ len(fcn.__name__) for fcn in fcns ])
for fcn in fcns:
    a = copy(list_to_reverse) # copy to start fresh each loop
    out_str = ' | out = {}'.format(fcn(a)) if number_of_items < 15 else ''
    # Time in ms for the given # of loops on this fcn
    time_str = time_str_ms(timeit(lambda: fcn(a), number=loops_to_test))
    # Get the output string for this function
    fcn_str = '{}(a):'.format(fcn.__name__)
    # Add the correct string length to accommodate the maximum fcn name
    format_str = '{{fx:{}s}} {{time}}{{rev}}'.format(max_name_string + 4)
    print(format_str.format(fx=fcn_str, time=time_str, rev=out_str))

Timing Results

The results show that scaling works best with the built-in methods best suited for a particular type of reversing. In other words, as the object element count increases, the built-in methods outpace the other methods by even more.

The built-in method that directly achieves what you need does better than stringing things together. i.e. slicing is best if you need a copy of the reversed list - it's faster than creating a duplicate list from list(reversed(obj)) function, and faster than making a copy of the list and then doing an in-place obj.reverse(), but never by more than double the speed. Meanwhile - custom methods can take orders of magnitude longer with large lists.

For scaling, with a 1000 item list, the reversed(<list>) function call takes ~30 ms to setup the iterator, reversing in-place takes just ~55 ms, using the slice method takes ~210 ms to create a copy of the full reversed list, but the quickest manual method I made took ~8400 ms.

With 2 items in the list:

a: [0, 1]
Loops: 100,000
rev_in_place(a):             24.70 ms | out = [1, 0]
reversed_iterator(a):        30.48 ms | out = <list_reverseiterator object at 0x0000020242580408>
rev_slice(a):                31.65 ms | out = [1, 0]
rev_copy_reverse(a):         63.42 ms | out = [1, 0]
reversed_with_list(a):       48.65 ms | out = [1, 0]
rev_manual_pos_gen(a):       98.94 ms | out = [1, 0]
rev_manual_neg_gen(a):       88.11 ms | out = [1, 0]
rev_manual_index_loop(a):    87.23 ms | out = [1, 0]
rev_manual_loop(a):          79.24 ms | out = [1, 0]

With 10 items in the list:

rev_in_place(a):             23.39 ms | out = [9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0]
reversed_iterator(a):        30.23 ms | out = <list_reverseiterator object at 0x00000290A3CB0388>
rev_slice(a):                36.01 ms | out = [9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0]
rev_copy_reverse(a):         64.67 ms | out = [9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0]
reversed_with_list(a):       50.77 ms | out = [9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0]
rev_manual_pos_gen(a):      162.83 ms | out = [9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0]
rev_manual_neg_gen(a):      167.43 ms | out = [9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0]
rev_manual_index_loop(a):   152.04 ms | out = [9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0]
rev_manual_loop(a):         183.01 ms | out = [9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0]

And with 1000 items in the list:

rev_in_place(a):             56.37 ms
reversed_iterator(a):        30.47 ms
rev_slice(a):               211.42 ms
rev_copy_reverse(a):        295.74 ms
reversed_with_list(a):      418.45 ms
rev_manual_pos_gen(a):     8410.01 ms
rev_manual_neg_gen(a):    11054.84 ms
rev_manual_index_loop(a): 10543.11 ms
rev_manual_loop(a):       15472.66 ms

f
fahad

For reversing the same list use:

array.reverse()

To assign reversed list into some other list use:

newArray = array[::-1] 

S
SimonM

Using slicing, e.g. array = array[::-1], is a neat trick and very Pythonic, but a little obscure for newbies maybe. Using the reverse() method is a good way to go in day to day coding because it is easily readable.

However, if you need to reverse a list in place as in an interview question, you will likely not be able to use built in methods like these. The interviewer will be looking at how you approach the problem rather than the depth of Python knowledge, an algorithmic approach is required. The following example, using a classic swap, might be one way to do it:-

def reverse_in_place(lst):      # Declare a function
    size = len(lst)             # Get the length of the sequence
    hiindex = size - 1
    its = size/2                # Number of iterations required
    for i in xrange(0, its):    # i is the low index pointer
        temp = lst[hiindex]     # Perform a classic swap
        lst[hiindex] = lst[i]
        lst[i] = temp
        hiindex -= 1            # Decrement the high index pointer
    print "Done!"

# Now test it!!
array = [2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 19, 25, 27, 32, 60, 65, 1, 7, 24, 124, 654]

print array                    # Print the original sequence
reverse_in_place(array)        # Call the function passing the list
print array                    # Print reversed list


**The result:**
[2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 19, 25, 27, 32, 60, 65, 1, 7, 24, 124, 654]
Done!
[654, 124, 24, 7, 1, 65, 60, 32, 27, 25, 19, 12, 9, 8, 5, 2]

Note that this will not work on Tuples or string sequences, because strings and tuples are immutable, i.e., you cannot write into them to change elements.


The classic swap could be done via lst[hiindex], lst[i] = lst[i], lst[hiindex], I think... ;-)
@Samoth That syntax isn't as clear and the behavior isn't exactly obvious. Distinct steps make more sense.
why people say that things like array[::-1] are pythonic? The python zen teach us that explicit is better than implicit and readability counts. Stuff like that are not explicit and readable at all.
@k4ppa: array[::-1] is perfectly readable and perfectly explicit if you know Python. "Readable" doesn't mean "someone who has never used Python slicing before must be able to read it"; the [::-1] reversing slice is a ridiculously common idiom in Python (you'll encounter it in existing code all the time), and it's perfectly readable if you regularly use Python. Sure, first10 = [], for i in range(10): first10.append(array[i]) is clear and explicit, but that doesn't make it better than first10 = array[:10].
Why is the number of iterations size/2? What's the logic behind it? Also, what if it's length isn't an even number. Then would it be ceil(size/2)
C
Chris_Rands

I find (contrary to some other suggestions) that l.reverse() is by far the fastest way to reverse a long list in Python 3 and 2. I'd be interested to know if others can replicate these timings.

l[::-1] is probably slower because it copies the list prior to reversing it. Adding the list() call around the iterator made by reversed(l) must add some overhead. Of course if you want a copy of the list or an iterator then use those respective methods, but if you want to just reverse the list then l.reverse() seems to be the fastest way.

Functions

def rev_list1(l):
    return l[::-1]

def rev_list2(l):
    return list(reversed(l))

def rev_list3(l):
    l.reverse()
    return l

List

l = list(range(1000000))

Python 3.5 timings

timeit(lambda: rev_list1(l), number=1000)
# 6.48
timeit(lambda: rev_list2(l), number=1000)
# 7.13
timeit(lambda: rev_list3(l), number=1000)
# 0.44

Python 2.7 timings

timeit(lambda: rev_list1(l), number=1000)
# 6.76
timeit(lambda: rev_list2(l), number=1000)
# 9.18
timeit(lambda: rev_list3(l), number=1000)
# 0.46

list.reverse is the fastest, because it reverses in place
You're correct list.reverse() is fastest, but you're penalizing reversed (which is best used when you don't want a new list, just to iterate an existing list in reverse order without mutating the original), and the slice (which also avoids mutating the original list, and is typically faster than reversed when the input is small). Yes, if you don't need the copy, anything that copies is more expensive, but a lot of the time, you don't want to mutate the original value.
It looks like reversed still loses to list.reverse() even so, but given it doesn't mutate the input list, it's better in many cases. The loss for reversed is small (~1/6th longer than list.reverse()).
S
Swiss
for x in array[::-1]:
    do stuff

This slicing method is not very readable. The Pythonic way would be to use the reverse() method. ;-)
@SimonM reverse() is definitely easier to understand at a glance.
E
Eyal Levin

With reversed and list:

>>> list1 = [1,2,3]
>>> reversed_list = list(reversed(list1))
>>> reversed_list
>>> [3, 2, 1]

n
nonopolarity
array=[0,10,20,40]
for e in reversed(array):
  print e

g
gpj

Using reversed(array) would be the likely best route.

>>> array = [1,2,3,4]
>>> for item in reversed(array):
>>>     print item

Should you need to understand how could implement this without using the built in reversed.

def reverse(a):
    midpoint = len(a)/2
    for item in a[:midpoint]:
        otherside = (len(a) - a.index(item)) - 1
        temp = a[otherside]
        a[otherside] = a[a.index(item)]
        a[a.index(item)] = temp
    return a

This should take O(N) time.


Was looking for how to do that without using the reverse function. Thanks.
Or to reverse in place use list = list.reverse()
Is a list, a, passed in by value or by reference? It is passed by reverence, so you do not need return a. You have modified at the original memory location of a
H
H6.

Another solution would be to use numpy.flip for this

import numpy as np
array = [0, 10, 20, 40]
list(np.flip(array))
[40, 20, 10, 0]

Great, very memorable. And unlike others solutions (shame on the OP for such a non-generic test case) it works even for unsorted lists (random numbers, etc).
T
Temak

If you want to store the elements of reversed list in some other variable, then you can use revArray = array[::-1] or revArray = list(reversed(array)).

But the first variant is slightly faster:

z = range(1000000)
startTimeTic = time.time()
y = z[::-1]
print("Time: %s s" % (time.time() - startTimeTic))

f = range(1000000)
startTimeTic = time.time()
g = list(reversed(f))
print("Time: %s s" % (time.time() - startTimeTic))

Output:

Time: 0.00489711761475 s
Time: 0.00609302520752 s

Next time, you might want to use timeit.
This is a bad test for two reasons. Firstly, the fact that you only test one iteration - of something that only takes a few milliseconds to execute - means the result may be a fluke. Secondly, depending upon whether you used Python 2 or Python 3, range(1000000) may not be a list at all, but rather a range object, with its own __reversed__ method that presumably behaves differently from that of a list.
1
101

You can also use the bitwise complement of the array index to step through the array in reverse:

>>> array = [0, 10, 20, 40]
>>> [array[~i] for i, _ in enumerate(array)]
[40, 20, 10, 0]

Whatever you do, don't do it this way ;)


H
Heezes

Using some logic

Using some old school logic to practice for interviews.

Swapping numbers front to back. Using two pointers index[0] and index[last]

def reverse(array):
    n = array
    first = 0
    last = len(array) - 1
    while first < last:
      holder = n[first]
      n[first] = n[last]
      n[last] = holder
      first += 1
      last -= 1
    return n

input -> [-1 ,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
output -> [6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, -1]

If we divide the list in two and swap the first with the last index and the time complexity will be more efficient than the sample listed.
P
Peter Mortensen

Use list comprehension:

[array[n] for n in range(len(array)-1, -1, -1)]

M
Marcelo Guedes

ORGANIZING VALUES:

In Python, lists' order too can be manipulated with sort, organizing your variables in numerical/alphabetical order: Temporarily:

print(sorted(my_list))

Permanent:

my_list.sort(), print(my_list)

You can sort with the flag "reverse=True":

print(sorted(my_list, reverse=True))

or

my_list.sort(reverse=True), print(my_list)

WITHOUT ORGANIZING

Maybe you do not want to sort values, but only reverse the values. Then we can do it like this:

print(list(reversed(my_list)))

**Numbers have priority over alphabet in listing order. The Python values' organization is awesome.

Edit 1: a mistaken moderator claimed that my answer was a copy and deleted my old post.


F
Fed

With minimum amount of built-in functions, assuming it's interview settings

array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8]
inverse = [] #create container for inverse array
length = len(array)  #to iterate later, returns 8 
counter = length - 1  #because the 8th element is on position 7 (as python starts from 0)

for i in range(length): 
   inverse.append(array[counter])
   counter -= 1
print(inverse)

A
Anuj Gupta

There are 3 methods to get the reversed list:

Slicing Method 1: reversed_array = array[-1::-1] Slicing Method 2: reversed_array2 = array[::-1] Using the builtin function: reversed_array = array.reverse()

The third function actually reversed the list object in place. That means no copy of pristine data is maintained. This is a good approach if you don't want to maintain the old version. But doesn't seem to be a solution if you do want the pristine and reversed version.


r
rjmoggach

The question is not how to return a list in reverse but rather how to reverse a list with an example list name array.

To reverse a list named "array" use array.reverse().

The incredibly useful slice method as described can also be used to reverse a list in place by defining the list as a sliced modification of itself using array[:] = array[::-1].


The last sentence is not true, this does not reverse a list in place; it should say array[:] = array[::-1]
J
John Machin

The most direct translation of your requirement into Python is this for statement:

for i in xrange(len(array) - 1, -1, -1):
   print i, array[i]

This is rather cryptic but may be useful.


D
David Guyon
def reverse(my_list):
  L = len(my_list)
  for i in range(L/2):
    my_list[i], my_list[L-i - 1] = my_list[L-i-1], my_list[i]
  return my_list

Better with // floor division operator.
S
Shawn Tsai
def reverse(text):
    output = []
    for i in range(len(text)-1, -1, -1):
        output.append(text[i])
    return output

R
Rick

You could always treat the list like a stack just popping the elements off the top of the stack from the back end of the list. That way you take advantage of first in last out characteristics of a stack. Of course you are consuming the 1st array. I do like this method in that it's pretty intuitive in that you see one list being consumed from the back end while the other is being built from the front end.

>>> l = [1,2,3,4,5,6]; nl=[]
>>> while l:
        nl.append(l.pop())  
>>> print nl
[6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1]

R
Rohan Chavan
list_data = [1,2,3,4,5]
l = len(list_data)
i=l+1
rev_data = []
while l>0:
  j=i-l
  l-=1
  rev_data.append(list_data[-j])
print "After Rev:- %s" %rev_data 

g
grf
>>> l = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
>>> print(reduce(lambda acc, x: [x] + acc, l, []))
[5, 4, 3, 2, 1]

This solution is about 4.5k times slower than l[::-1], and at the same time much less legible. Functional programming in Python is sadly rather slow.
J
Julien

Reversing in-place by switching references of opposite indices:

>>> l = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]    
>>> for i in range(len(l)//2):
...     l[i], l[-1-i] = l[-1-i], l[i]
...
>>> l
[7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1]

Works for odd length lists!
My solution is right! You know how python implements indexing. From right to left you have 0,1,2... and from left to right you have -1,-2,-3.. etc. To reverse a list, you cut it into two parts and you multiply the indexes on the right by their opposites on the left minus one.
S
SuperNova

Can be done using __reverse__ , which returns a generator.

>>> l = [1,2,3,4,5]
>>> for i in l.__reversed__():
...   print i
... 
5
4
3
2
1
>>>

P
Palash Mondal

Reverse of a user input values in one line code:

for i in input()[::-1]: print(i,end='')

C
Corman

Here's a way to lazily evaluate the reverse using a generator:

def reverse(seq):
    for x in range(len(seq), -1, -1): #Iterate through a sequence starting from -1 and increasing by -1.
        yield seq[x] #Yield a value to the generator

Now iterate through like this:

for x in reverse([1, 2, 3]):
    print(x)

If you need a list:

l = list(reverse([1, 2, 3]))