# Join List with Separator

I was implementing something similar to Python's join function, where

join([a1, a2, ..., aN], separator :: String)


returns

str(a1) + separator + str(a2) + separator + ... + str(aN)


e.g.,

join([1, 2, 3], '+') == '1+2+3'


I was implementing something similar and was wondering, what is a good pattern to do this? Because there is the issue of only adding the separator if it is not the last element

def join(l, sep):
out_str = ''
for i, el in enumerate(l):
out_str += '{}{}'.format(el, sep)
return out_str[:-len(sep)]


I'm quite happy with this, but is there a canoncial approach?

• In Perl's join the separator is the first argument to avoid ambiguity. – chicks May 8 '17 at 11:34
• Ok in general appending N arbitrary strings iteratively would be O(N^2) in most languages and implementations, because it requires a malloc/realloc() call in each loop, but cPython special-cases this, so it's only N*O(1) = O(N). In native Python. string.join or sep.join are faster because they're one Python call, not N. See Is the time-complexity of iterative string append actually O(n^2), or O(n)? – smci Jan 9 at 12:07
• I like the word delimiter more than separator – bhathiya-perera Jan 10 at 12:32
• @bhathiya-perera "delimiter" is broader than "separator", and is also technical jargon. – Peilonrayz Jan 10 at 22:26

Strings in Python are immutable, and so 'string a' + 'string b' has to make a third string to combine them. Say you want to clone a string, by adding each item to the string will get $O(n^2)$ time, as opposed to $O(n)$ as you would get if it were a list.

And so, the best way to join an iterable by a separator is to use str.join.

>>> ','.join('abcdef')
'a,b,c,d,e,f'


If you want to do this manually, then I'd accept the $O(n^2)$ performance, and write something easy to understand. One way to do this is to take the first item, and add a separator and an item every time after, such as:

def join(iterator, seperator):
it = map(str, iterator)
seperator = str(seperator)
string = next(it, '')
for s in it:
string += seperator + s
return string

• Very nice, thanks! Yeah I know about str.join, I was just implementing something slightly different and wondered how to do it nicely. I like your approach with using next at the beginning! Do you know where I can find the source of str.join though? Google didn't help.. – fabian789 May 8 '17 at 11:28
• @fabian789 The source for str.join is probably this. It looks about right, and is written in C. – Peilonrayz May 8 '17 at 11:44

Let's take that step by step:

def join(l, sep):
out_str = ''
for i, el in enumerate(l):


Here, why do you need the enumerate? You could write for el in l:

        out_str += '{}{}'.format(el, sep)


.format is not super efficient, there are other methods. You can have a look at This question for some researches and benchmarks on performances.

    return out_str[:-len(sep)]


This makes little sense for l = [] if len(sep) > 1. ''[:-1] is valid, and returns '', because python is nice, but it is not a very good way of getting around that limit case.

In general, adding something just to remove it at the end is not great.

Creating an iter, looking at the first value, then adding the rest, as it has been suggested in other answers, is much better.

I would also recommend writing some unit tests, so that you can then play around with the implementation, and stay confident that what you write still works.

Typically, you could write:

# Empty list
join([], '') == ''
# Only one element, -> no separator in output
join(['a'], '-') == 'a'
# Empty separator
join(['a', 'b'], '') == 'ab'
# "Normal" case
join(['a', 'b'], '--') == 'a--b'
# ints
join([1, 2], 0) == '102'


There are a number of ways you can go about doing this, but using an iterator can be a nice approach:

l = [1, 2, 3, 4]

def join_l(l, sep):
li = iter(l)
string = str(next(li))
for i in li:
string += str(sep) + str(i)
return string

print join_l(l, "-")


Using the first next() call allows you to do something different with the first item of your iterable before you loop over the rest using the for loop.

• try it with [] – njzk2 May 8 '17 at 15:58

As join is already a Python built in function, it is recommended not to create a function identically named. I think will be a good idea to rename your function to exclude possible conflicts.

• This is just false, help(join) results in NameError: name 'join' is not defined. Now help(str.join) exists, but that's not going to cause any conflicts. – Peilonrayz Jul 8 at 8:58
• "As join is already a Python built in function, it is recommended not to create a function identically named" - this also doesn't apply in the context of what OP asked. That's why they added the "reinventing-the-wheel" tag in the first place :) – Grajdeanu Alex. Jul 8 at 9:31