Asked By – Chris Phillips
I would like to get the first item from a list matching a condition. It’s important that the resulting method not process the entire list, which could be quite large. For example, the following function is adequate:
def first(the_iterable, condition = lambda x: True): for i in the_iterable: if condition(i): return i
This function could be used something like this:
>>> first(range(10)) 0 >>> first(range(10), lambda i: i > 3) 4
However, I can’t think of a good built-in / one-liner to let me do this. I don’t particularly want to copy this function around if I don’t have to. Is there a built-in way to get the first item matching a condition?
Now we will see solution for issue: Get the first item from an iterable that matches a condition
Python 2.6+ and Python 3:
If you want
StopIteration to be raised if no matching element is found:
next(x for x in the_iterable if x > 3)
If you want
None) to be returned instead:
next((x for x in the_iterable if x > 3), default_value)
Note that you need an extra pair of parentheses around the generator expression in this case − they are needed whenever the generator expression isn’t the only argument.
I see most answers resolutely ignore the
next built-in and so I assume that for some mysterious reason they’re 100% focused on versions 2.5 and older — without mentioning the Python-version issue (but then I don’t see that mention in the answers that do mention the
next built-in, which is why I thought it necessary to provide an answer myself — at least the “correct version” issue gets on record this way;-).
Python <= 2.5
.next() method of iterators immediately raises
StopIteration if the iterator immediately finishes — i.e., for your use case, if no item in the iterable satisfies the condition. If you don’t care (i.e., you know there must be at least one satisfactory item) then just use
.next() (best on a genexp, line for the
next built-in in Python 2.6 and better).
If you do care, wrapping things in a function as you had first indicated in your Q seems best, and while the function implementation you proposed is just fine, you could alternatively use
for...: break loop, or a genexp, or a
try/except StopIteration as the function’s body, as various answers suggested. There’s not much added value in any of these alternatives so I’d go for the starkly-simple version you first proposed.