Perl's Diamond Operator in Python

I'm been a full Python convert for over a year now. Perl is just too cumbersome at times. I think the artist who draws XKCD has made the same choice. The one thing that still takes me back to Perl is the ultra-handy <> "diamond operator". You can't deny Perl's dominance when it comes to string processing. Look at this elegance:

#!/usr/bin/perl

while (<>) {
    print
}

Every time I encounter a string processing problem where I have to work with multiple files, I go back to Perl. I didn't think Python could do this. Python should have the same ability as Perl's diamond:

def diamond():
    """
    diamond()
    Pre: Nothing.
    This is my attempt to recreate the very handy diamond operator found in
    Perl, which is my only reason for still using that language.

    To use the code:
    for line in diamond():
        process(line)
    """
    import sys
    if len(sys.argv[1:]) > 0:
        for file in sys.argv[1:]:
            if file == '-':
                for line in sys.stdin:
                    yield line
            else:
                f = open(file, 'r')
                for line in f:
                    yield line
                f.close()
    else:
        for line in sys.stdin:
            yield line

What does this do? It checks the sys.argv variable for file names on the command line and iterates through each line of each file. If it can't find a file, it defaults to standard input.

Of course, before I start to write code, I should always use Google first. There exist a module called "fileinput" which does the same thing.

D'oh! Hey... it's practice.

A Losing Strategy

Today I ran across a year 2000 article in the New York Times titled "Paradox in Game Theory: Losing Strategy That Wins." Given two games which lose most of the time, a strategy can be devised so that we can win most of the time. The article has a (fairly) detailed description of two example games:

The paradox is illustrated by two games played with coins weighted on one side so that they will not fall by chance to heads or tails.

In game A, a player tosses a single loaded coin and bets on each throw. The probability of winning is less than half.

In game B, there are two coins and the rules are more complicated. The player tosses either Coin 1, loaded to lose almost all the time or Coin 2 loaded to win more than half the time. He plays Coin 1 if his money is a multiple of a particular whole number, like three.

If his money cannot be divided evenly by that number, he plays Coin 2. In this setup, the second coin will be played more often than the first.

After reading this story, I wrote a quick Python script to demonstrate this game. The problem description isn't definitive on things like the exact probabilities of the coin flips, so we have to make a few assumptions. I set the probability of the coin flip in Game A to p1=0.33, and in Game B, the probability of coin1 to p=0.1 and coin2 to p=0.66. These probabilities are pulled from the air, but they do meet the requirement set forth in the problem description, so they should work. So the two games alternating should outperform both Game A and Game B when run indivdually. Let's run the program a few times to see if a combination of Games A and B are better than Game A or Game B.

[jcchurch@mcart python]$ python badgames.py 
Game A, 1000 runs:
  Before: 1000 MONEY
  After:  674 MONEY

Game B, 1000 runs:
  Before: 1000 MONEY
  After:  978 MONEY

Alternating: 1000 runs:
  Before: 1000 MONEY
  After:  850 MONEY

[jcchurch@mcart python]$ python badgames.py 
Game A, 1000 runs:
  Before: 1000 MONEY
  After:  734 MONEY

Game B, 1000 runs:
  Before: 1000 MONEY
  After:  890 MONEY

Alternating: 1000 runs:
  Before: 1000 MONEY
  After:  870 MONEY

[jcchurch@mcart python]$ python badgames.py 
Game A, 1000 runs:
  Before: 1000 MONEY
  After:  636 MONEY

Game B, 1000 runs:
  Before: 1000 MONEY
  After:  932 MONEY

Alternating: 1000 runs:
  Before: 1000 MONEY
  After:  820 MONEY

[jcchurch@mcart python]$ python badgames.py 
Game A, 1000 runs:
  Before: 1000 MONEY
  After:  604 MONEY

Game B, 1000 runs:
  Before: 1000 MONEY
  After:  918 MONEY

Alternating: 1000 runs:
  Before: 1000 MONEY
  After:  846 MONEY

I just ran the problem described in the New York Times 4 times and got 4 negative results. Game B always outperforms Game A and the combined Games A and B. This article looked very interesting and very improbable. If it's too good to be true, check for yourself.