merging 3 lists in ascending order



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








0















I'm looking for a way to merge 3 sorted lists of ascending order without using any built-in functions or recursion.
For example:



merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]) produces [1,1,3,4,5,6,7,9]


I have the following done so far but it does not produce the expected above result.



def merge(list1, list2, list3):
results =
while len(list1) and len(list2) and len(list3):
if (list1[0] < list2[0]) and (list1[0] < list3[0]):
results.append(list1.pop(0))
elif (list2[0] < list1[0]) and (list2[0] < list3[0]):
results.append(list2.pop(0))
elif (list3[0] < list1[0]) and (list3[0] < list2[0]):
results.append(list3.pop(0))
results.extend(list1)
results.extend(list2)
results.extend(list3)
return results









share|improve this question
























  • see my simple solution

    – Geeocode
    Nov 14 '18 at 2:07











  • Cutie Pie in my last update eliminated the only builtin len() function, take a look.

    – Geeocode
    Nov 14 '18 at 2:29

















0















I'm looking for a way to merge 3 sorted lists of ascending order without using any built-in functions or recursion.
For example:



merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]) produces [1,1,3,4,5,6,7,9]


I have the following done so far but it does not produce the expected above result.



def merge(list1, list2, list3):
results =
while len(list1) and len(list2) and len(list3):
if (list1[0] < list2[0]) and (list1[0] < list3[0]):
results.append(list1.pop(0))
elif (list2[0] < list1[0]) and (list2[0] < list3[0]):
results.append(list2.pop(0))
elif (list3[0] < list1[0]) and (list3[0] < list2[0]):
results.append(list3.pop(0))
results.extend(list1)
results.extend(list2)
results.extend(list3)
return results









share|improve this question
























  • see my simple solution

    – Geeocode
    Nov 14 '18 at 2:07











  • Cutie Pie in my last update eliminated the only builtin len() function, take a look.

    – Geeocode
    Nov 14 '18 at 2:29













0












0








0








I'm looking for a way to merge 3 sorted lists of ascending order without using any built-in functions or recursion.
For example:



merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]) produces [1,1,3,4,5,6,7,9]


I have the following done so far but it does not produce the expected above result.



def merge(list1, list2, list3):
results =
while len(list1) and len(list2) and len(list3):
if (list1[0] < list2[0]) and (list1[0] < list3[0]):
results.append(list1.pop(0))
elif (list2[0] < list1[0]) and (list2[0] < list3[0]):
results.append(list2.pop(0))
elif (list3[0] < list1[0]) and (list3[0] < list2[0]):
results.append(list3.pop(0))
results.extend(list1)
results.extend(list2)
results.extend(list3)
return results









share|improve this question
















I'm looking for a way to merge 3 sorted lists of ascending order without using any built-in functions or recursion.
For example:



merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]) produces [1,1,3,4,5,6,7,9]


I have the following done so far but it does not produce the expected above result.



def merge(list1, list2, list3):
results =
while len(list1) and len(list2) and len(list3):
if (list1[0] < list2[0]) and (list1[0] < list3[0]):
results.append(list1.pop(0))
elif (list2[0] < list1[0]) and (list2[0] < list3[0]):
results.append(list2.pop(0))
elif (list3[0] < list1[0]) and (list3[0] < list2[0]):
results.append(list3.pop(0))
results.extend(list1)
results.extend(list2)
results.extend(list3)
return results






python






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 14 '18 at 1:31









user3483203

32.1k82857




32.1k82857










asked Nov 14 '18 at 1:21









Cutie PieCutie Pie

144




144












  • see my simple solution

    – Geeocode
    Nov 14 '18 at 2:07











  • Cutie Pie in my last update eliminated the only builtin len() function, take a look.

    – Geeocode
    Nov 14 '18 at 2:29

















  • see my simple solution

    – Geeocode
    Nov 14 '18 at 2:07











  • Cutie Pie in my last update eliminated the only builtin len() function, take a look.

    – Geeocode
    Nov 14 '18 at 2:29
















see my simple solution

– Geeocode
Nov 14 '18 at 2:07





see my simple solution

– Geeocode
Nov 14 '18 at 2:07













Cutie Pie in my last update eliminated the only builtin len() function, take a look.

– Geeocode
Nov 14 '18 at 2:29





Cutie Pie in my last update eliminated the only builtin len() function, take a look.

– Geeocode
Nov 14 '18 at 2:29












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















1














Your use of < rather than <= is causing you problems. In the case where you have identical data points, it can easily lead to none of the if statements firing. Specifically, take your first data point from each list, 1/1/3, and use them in the conditions for your three if statements:



(1 < 1) and (1 < 3): no, fails first part
(1 < 1) and (1 < 3): no, fails first part
(3 < 1) and (3 < 1): no, fails both parts


That causes an infinite loop since no action is being taken to modify the lists.




In any case, I think you're overly complicating things with a three-way merge when you can just do it as a couple of two-way merges:



def merge2(list1, list2):
result =
idx1 = 0
idx2 = 0

# Get lowest while both lists are active.

while idx1 < len(list1) and idx2 < len(list2):
if list1[idx1] <= list2[idx2]:
result.append(list1[idx1])
idx1 += 1
else:
result.append(list2[idx2])
idx2 += 1

# Get remainder of each list (only one will be active here).

while idx1 < len(list1):
result.append(list1[idx1])
idx1 += 1

while idx2 < len(list2):
result.append(list2[idx2])
idx2 += 1

return result

def merge(list1, list2, list3):
# Three-way is two two-ways.

return merge2(merge2(list1, list2), list3)

print(merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]))


This is slightly less efficient than a three-way but won't really make a difference unless you use truly large data sets (and, in my opinion, doing it this way results in a much "cleaner" program).




Of course the smart way to do this would be to use the actual facilities of the language. Even though you've stated you don't want to do that (and I'm not sure why that would be the case, other than maybe an artificial restriction for classwork), the Pythonic way would be:



def merge(list1, list2, list3):
allitems = [item for sublist in [list1, list2, list3] for item in sublist]
allitems.sort()
return allitems


And, in fact, you could make it handle arbitrary list quantities by providing a list of lists in the call, rather than a fixed number of lists:



def merge(listOfLists):
allitems = [item for sublist in listOfLists for item in sublist]
allitems.sort()
return allitems

print(merge([[1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]])) # Three lists, but any number will work.





share|improve this answer

























  • is there a way of doing this without any helper function?

    – Cutie Pie
    Nov 14 '18 at 1:44











  • @CutiePie, yes, there is. I call it the "ugly and not very well structured" method :-) In any case, don't think of it as a helper function, it's actually a useful two-way merge in its own right. Refactoring that out means you can use it in other situations.

    – paxdiablo
    Nov 14 '18 at 1:45



















-1














Or use non-builtin sorting way:



def merge(*l):
l=[x for i in l for x in i]
newl =
while l:
mi = l[0]
for x in l:
if x < mi:
mi = x
newl.append(mi)
l.remove(mi)

return newl


Now:



print(merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]))


Is:



[1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]





share|improve this answer






























    -1














    Whithout any builtin function and so:



    a quite simple form:



    def merge(*lists_in):
    list_in =
    for l in lists_in:
    list_in += l

    i = 0
    while True:
    if i == list_in.__len__() -1:
    break
    if list_in[i] > list_in[i+1]:
    temp = list_in[i]
    list_in[i] = list_in[i+1]
    list_in[i+1] = temp
    i = 0
    else:
    i += 1

    return list_in


    Testing it:



    list1 = [1,4] 
    list2 = [1,5,6]
    list3 = [3,7,9]

    print(merge(list1, list2, list3))


    Out:



    [1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]





    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      There really is no need to do a sort when the whole point of a merge is to merge already-sorted data :-)

      – paxdiablo
      Nov 14 '18 at 2:16






    • 1





      @paxdiablo haha, yeah

      – Geeocode
      Nov 14 '18 at 2:19











    • @paxdiablo with this update now using the merge() name is legal, but somone downvoted... :)

      – Geeocode
      Nov 14 '18 at 2:51











    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    );
    );
    , "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53291851%2fmerging-3-lists-in-ascending-order%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1














    Your use of < rather than <= is causing you problems. In the case where you have identical data points, it can easily lead to none of the if statements firing. Specifically, take your first data point from each list, 1/1/3, and use them in the conditions for your three if statements:



    (1 < 1) and (1 < 3): no, fails first part
    (1 < 1) and (1 < 3): no, fails first part
    (3 < 1) and (3 < 1): no, fails both parts


    That causes an infinite loop since no action is being taken to modify the lists.




    In any case, I think you're overly complicating things with a three-way merge when you can just do it as a couple of two-way merges:



    def merge2(list1, list2):
    result =
    idx1 = 0
    idx2 = 0

    # Get lowest while both lists are active.

    while idx1 < len(list1) and idx2 < len(list2):
    if list1[idx1] <= list2[idx2]:
    result.append(list1[idx1])
    idx1 += 1
    else:
    result.append(list2[idx2])
    idx2 += 1

    # Get remainder of each list (only one will be active here).

    while idx1 < len(list1):
    result.append(list1[idx1])
    idx1 += 1

    while idx2 < len(list2):
    result.append(list2[idx2])
    idx2 += 1

    return result

    def merge(list1, list2, list3):
    # Three-way is two two-ways.

    return merge2(merge2(list1, list2), list3)

    print(merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]))


    This is slightly less efficient than a three-way but won't really make a difference unless you use truly large data sets (and, in my opinion, doing it this way results in a much "cleaner" program).




    Of course the smart way to do this would be to use the actual facilities of the language. Even though you've stated you don't want to do that (and I'm not sure why that would be the case, other than maybe an artificial restriction for classwork), the Pythonic way would be:



    def merge(list1, list2, list3):
    allitems = [item for sublist in [list1, list2, list3] for item in sublist]
    allitems.sort()
    return allitems


    And, in fact, you could make it handle arbitrary list quantities by providing a list of lists in the call, rather than a fixed number of lists:



    def merge(listOfLists):
    allitems = [item for sublist in listOfLists for item in sublist]
    allitems.sort()
    return allitems

    print(merge([[1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]])) # Three lists, but any number will work.





    share|improve this answer

























    • is there a way of doing this without any helper function?

      – Cutie Pie
      Nov 14 '18 at 1:44











    • @CutiePie, yes, there is. I call it the "ugly and not very well structured" method :-) In any case, don't think of it as a helper function, it's actually a useful two-way merge in its own right. Refactoring that out means you can use it in other situations.

      – paxdiablo
      Nov 14 '18 at 1:45
















    1














    Your use of < rather than <= is causing you problems. In the case where you have identical data points, it can easily lead to none of the if statements firing. Specifically, take your first data point from each list, 1/1/3, and use them in the conditions for your three if statements:



    (1 < 1) and (1 < 3): no, fails first part
    (1 < 1) and (1 < 3): no, fails first part
    (3 < 1) and (3 < 1): no, fails both parts


    That causes an infinite loop since no action is being taken to modify the lists.




    In any case, I think you're overly complicating things with a three-way merge when you can just do it as a couple of two-way merges:



    def merge2(list1, list2):
    result =
    idx1 = 0
    idx2 = 0

    # Get lowest while both lists are active.

    while idx1 < len(list1) and idx2 < len(list2):
    if list1[idx1] <= list2[idx2]:
    result.append(list1[idx1])
    idx1 += 1
    else:
    result.append(list2[idx2])
    idx2 += 1

    # Get remainder of each list (only one will be active here).

    while idx1 < len(list1):
    result.append(list1[idx1])
    idx1 += 1

    while idx2 < len(list2):
    result.append(list2[idx2])
    idx2 += 1

    return result

    def merge(list1, list2, list3):
    # Three-way is two two-ways.

    return merge2(merge2(list1, list2), list3)

    print(merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]))


    This is slightly less efficient than a three-way but won't really make a difference unless you use truly large data sets (and, in my opinion, doing it this way results in a much "cleaner" program).




    Of course the smart way to do this would be to use the actual facilities of the language. Even though you've stated you don't want to do that (and I'm not sure why that would be the case, other than maybe an artificial restriction for classwork), the Pythonic way would be:



    def merge(list1, list2, list3):
    allitems = [item for sublist in [list1, list2, list3] for item in sublist]
    allitems.sort()
    return allitems


    And, in fact, you could make it handle arbitrary list quantities by providing a list of lists in the call, rather than a fixed number of lists:



    def merge(listOfLists):
    allitems = [item for sublist in listOfLists for item in sublist]
    allitems.sort()
    return allitems

    print(merge([[1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]])) # Three lists, but any number will work.





    share|improve this answer

























    • is there a way of doing this without any helper function?

      – Cutie Pie
      Nov 14 '18 at 1:44











    • @CutiePie, yes, there is. I call it the "ugly and not very well structured" method :-) In any case, don't think of it as a helper function, it's actually a useful two-way merge in its own right. Refactoring that out means you can use it in other situations.

      – paxdiablo
      Nov 14 '18 at 1:45














    1












    1








    1







    Your use of < rather than <= is causing you problems. In the case where you have identical data points, it can easily lead to none of the if statements firing. Specifically, take your first data point from each list, 1/1/3, and use them in the conditions for your three if statements:



    (1 < 1) and (1 < 3): no, fails first part
    (1 < 1) and (1 < 3): no, fails first part
    (3 < 1) and (3 < 1): no, fails both parts


    That causes an infinite loop since no action is being taken to modify the lists.




    In any case, I think you're overly complicating things with a three-way merge when you can just do it as a couple of two-way merges:



    def merge2(list1, list2):
    result =
    idx1 = 0
    idx2 = 0

    # Get lowest while both lists are active.

    while idx1 < len(list1) and idx2 < len(list2):
    if list1[idx1] <= list2[idx2]:
    result.append(list1[idx1])
    idx1 += 1
    else:
    result.append(list2[idx2])
    idx2 += 1

    # Get remainder of each list (only one will be active here).

    while idx1 < len(list1):
    result.append(list1[idx1])
    idx1 += 1

    while idx2 < len(list2):
    result.append(list2[idx2])
    idx2 += 1

    return result

    def merge(list1, list2, list3):
    # Three-way is two two-ways.

    return merge2(merge2(list1, list2), list3)

    print(merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]))


    This is slightly less efficient than a three-way but won't really make a difference unless you use truly large data sets (and, in my opinion, doing it this way results in a much "cleaner" program).




    Of course the smart way to do this would be to use the actual facilities of the language. Even though you've stated you don't want to do that (and I'm not sure why that would be the case, other than maybe an artificial restriction for classwork), the Pythonic way would be:



    def merge(list1, list2, list3):
    allitems = [item for sublist in [list1, list2, list3] for item in sublist]
    allitems.sort()
    return allitems


    And, in fact, you could make it handle arbitrary list quantities by providing a list of lists in the call, rather than a fixed number of lists:



    def merge(listOfLists):
    allitems = [item for sublist in listOfLists for item in sublist]
    allitems.sort()
    return allitems

    print(merge([[1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]])) # Three lists, but any number will work.





    share|improve this answer















    Your use of < rather than <= is causing you problems. In the case where you have identical data points, it can easily lead to none of the if statements firing. Specifically, take your first data point from each list, 1/1/3, and use them in the conditions for your three if statements:



    (1 < 1) and (1 < 3): no, fails first part
    (1 < 1) and (1 < 3): no, fails first part
    (3 < 1) and (3 < 1): no, fails both parts


    That causes an infinite loop since no action is being taken to modify the lists.




    In any case, I think you're overly complicating things with a three-way merge when you can just do it as a couple of two-way merges:



    def merge2(list1, list2):
    result =
    idx1 = 0
    idx2 = 0

    # Get lowest while both lists are active.

    while idx1 < len(list1) and idx2 < len(list2):
    if list1[idx1] <= list2[idx2]:
    result.append(list1[idx1])
    idx1 += 1
    else:
    result.append(list2[idx2])
    idx2 += 1

    # Get remainder of each list (only one will be active here).

    while idx1 < len(list1):
    result.append(list1[idx1])
    idx1 += 1

    while idx2 < len(list2):
    result.append(list2[idx2])
    idx2 += 1

    return result

    def merge(list1, list2, list3):
    # Three-way is two two-ways.

    return merge2(merge2(list1, list2), list3)

    print(merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]))


    This is slightly less efficient than a three-way but won't really make a difference unless you use truly large data sets (and, in my opinion, doing it this way results in a much "cleaner" program).




    Of course the smart way to do this would be to use the actual facilities of the language. Even though you've stated you don't want to do that (and I'm not sure why that would be the case, other than maybe an artificial restriction for classwork), the Pythonic way would be:



    def merge(list1, list2, list3):
    allitems = [item for sublist in [list1, list2, list3] for item in sublist]
    allitems.sort()
    return allitems


    And, in fact, you could make it handle arbitrary list quantities by providing a list of lists in the call, rather than a fixed number of lists:



    def merge(listOfLists):
    allitems = [item for sublist in listOfLists for item in sublist]
    allitems.sort()
    return allitems

    print(merge([[1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]])) # Three lists, but any number will work.






    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 14 '18 at 2:45

























    answered Nov 14 '18 at 1:39









    paxdiablopaxdiablo

    644k17712691692




    644k17712691692












    • is there a way of doing this without any helper function?

      – Cutie Pie
      Nov 14 '18 at 1:44











    • @CutiePie, yes, there is. I call it the "ugly and not very well structured" method :-) In any case, don't think of it as a helper function, it's actually a useful two-way merge in its own right. Refactoring that out means you can use it in other situations.

      – paxdiablo
      Nov 14 '18 at 1:45


















    • is there a way of doing this without any helper function?

      – Cutie Pie
      Nov 14 '18 at 1:44











    • @CutiePie, yes, there is. I call it the "ugly and not very well structured" method :-) In any case, don't think of it as a helper function, it's actually a useful two-way merge in its own right. Refactoring that out means you can use it in other situations.

      – paxdiablo
      Nov 14 '18 at 1:45

















    is there a way of doing this without any helper function?

    – Cutie Pie
    Nov 14 '18 at 1:44





    is there a way of doing this without any helper function?

    – Cutie Pie
    Nov 14 '18 at 1:44













    @CutiePie, yes, there is. I call it the "ugly and not very well structured" method :-) In any case, don't think of it as a helper function, it's actually a useful two-way merge in its own right. Refactoring that out means you can use it in other situations.

    – paxdiablo
    Nov 14 '18 at 1:45






    @CutiePie, yes, there is. I call it the "ugly and not very well structured" method :-) In any case, don't think of it as a helper function, it's actually a useful two-way merge in its own right. Refactoring that out means you can use it in other situations.

    – paxdiablo
    Nov 14 '18 at 1:45














    -1














    Or use non-builtin sorting way:



    def merge(*l):
    l=[x for i in l for x in i]
    newl =
    while l:
    mi = l[0]
    for x in l:
    if x < mi:
    mi = x
    newl.append(mi)
    l.remove(mi)

    return newl


    Now:



    print(merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]))


    Is:



    [1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]





    share|improve this answer



























      -1














      Or use non-builtin sorting way:



      def merge(*l):
      l=[x for i in l for x in i]
      newl =
      while l:
      mi = l[0]
      for x in l:
      if x < mi:
      mi = x
      newl.append(mi)
      l.remove(mi)

      return newl


      Now:



      print(merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]))


      Is:



      [1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]





      share|improve this answer

























        -1












        -1








        -1







        Or use non-builtin sorting way:



        def merge(*l):
        l=[x for i in l for x in i]
        newl =
        while l:
        mi = l[0]
        for x in l:
        if x < mi:
        mi = x
        newl.append(mi)
        l.remove(mi)

        return newl


        Now:



        print(merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]))


        Is:



        [1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]





        share|improve this answer













        Or use non-builtin sorting way:



        def merge(*l):
        l=[x for i in l for x in i]
        newl =
        while l:
        mi = l[0]
        for x in l:
        if x < mi:
        mi = x
        newl.append(mi)
        l.remove(mi)

        return newl


        Now:



        print(merge([1,4],[1,5,6],[3,7,9]))


        Is:



        [1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]






        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Nov 14 '18 at 1:39









        U9-ForwardU9-Forward

        18.1k51744




        18.1k51744





















            -1














            Whithout any builtin function and so:



            a quite simple form:



            def merge(*lists_in):
            list_in =
            for l in lists_in:
            list_in += l

            i = 0
            while True:
            if i == list_in.__len__() -1:
            break
            if list_in[i] > list_in[i+1]:
            temp = list_in[i]
            list_in[i] = list_in[i+1]
            list_in[i+1] = temp
            i = 0
            else:
            i += 1

            return list_in


            Testing it:



            list1 = [1,4] 
            list2 = [1,5,6]
            list3 = [3,7,9]

            print(merge(list1, list2, list3))


            Out:



            [1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]





            share|improve this answer




















            • 1





              There really is no need to do a sort when the whole point of a merge is to merge already-sorted data :-)

              – paxdiablo
              Nov 14 '18 at 2:16






            • 1





              @paxdiablo haha, yeah

              – Geeocode
              Nov 14 '18 at 2:19











            • @paxdiablo with this update now using the merge() name is legal, but somone downvoted... :)

              – Geeocode
              Nov 14 '18 at 2:51















            -1














            Whithout any builtin function and so:



            a quite simple form:



            def merge(*lists_in):
            list_in =
            for l in lists_in:
            list_in += l

            i = 0
            while True:
            if i == list_in.__len__() -1:
            break
            if list_in[i] > list_in[i+1]:
            temp = list_in[i]
            list_in[i] = list_in[i+1]
            list_in[i+1] = temp
            i = 0
            else:
            i += 1

            return list_in


            Testing it:



            list1 = [1,4] 
            list2 = [1,5,6]
            list3 = [3,7,9]

            print(merge(list1, list2, list3))


            Out:



            [1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]





            share|improve this answer




















            • 1





              There really is no need to do a sort when the whole point of a merge is to merge already-sorted data :-)

              – paxdiablo
              Nov 14 '18 at 2:16






            • 1





              @paxdiablo haha, yeah

              – Geeocode
              Nov 14 '18 at 2:19











            • @paxdiablo with this update now using the merge() name is legal, but somone downvoted... :)

              – Geeocode
              Nov 14 '18 at 2:51













            -1












            -1








            -1







            Whithout any builtin function and so:



            a quite simple form:



            def merge(*lists_in):
            list_in =
            for l in lists_in:
            list_in += l

            i = 0
            while True:
            if i == list_in.__len__() -1:
            break
            if list_in[i] > list_in[i+1]:
            temp = list_in[i]
            list_in[i] = list_in[i+1]
            list_in[i+1] = temp
            i = 0
            else:
            i += 1

            return list_in


            Testing it:



            list1 = [1,4] 
            list2 = [1,5,6]
            list3 = [3,7,9]

            print(merge(list1, list2, list3))


            Out:



            [1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]





            share|improve this answer















            Whithout any builtin function and so:



            a quite simple form:



            def merge(*lists_in):
            list_in =
            for l in lists_in:
            list_in += l

            i = 0
            while True:
            if i == list_in.__len__() -1:
            break
            if list_in[i] > list_in[i+1]:
            temp = list_in[i]
            list_in[i] = list_in[i+1]
            list_in[i+1] = temp
            i = 0
            else:
            i += 1

            return list_in


            Testing it:



            list1 = [1,4] 
            list2 = [1,5,6]
            list3 = [3,7,9]

            print(merge(list1, list2, list3))


            Out:



            [1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]






            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Nov 14 '18 at 2:47

























            answered Nov 14 '18 at 2:05









            GeeocodeGeeocode

            2,44011021




            2,44011021







            • 1





              There really is no need to do a sort when the whole point of a merge is to merge already-sorted data :-)

              – paxdiablo
              Nov 14 '18 at 2:16






            • 1





              @paxdiablo haha, yeah

              – Geeocode
              Nov 14 '18 at 2:19











            • @paxdiablo with this update now using the merge() name is legal, but somone downvoted... :)

              – Geeocode
              Nov 14 '18 at 2:51












            • 1





              There really is no need to do a sort when the whole point of a merge is to merge already-sorted data :-)

              – paxdiablo
              Nov 14 '18 at 2:16






            • 1





              @paxdiablo haha, yeah

              – Geeocode
              Nov 14 '18 at 2:19











            • @paxdiablo with this update now using the merge() name is legal, but somone downvoted... :)

              – Geeocode
              Nov 14 '18 at 2:51







            1




            1





            There really is no need to do a sort when the whole point of a merge is to merge already-sorted data :-)

            – paxdiablo
            Nov 14 '18 at 2:16





            There really is no need to do a sort when the whole point of a merge is to merge already-sorted data :-)

            – paxdiablo
            Nov 14 '18 at 2:16




            1




            1





            @paxdiablo haha, yeah

            – Geeocode
            Nov 14 '18 at 2:19





            @paxdiablo haha, yeah

            – Geeocode
            Nov 14 '18 at 2:19













            @paxdiablo with this update now using the merge() name is legal, but somone downvoted... :)

            – Geeocode
            Nov 14 '18 at 2:51





            @paxdiablo with this update now using the merge() name is legal, but somone downvoted... :)

            – Geeocode
            Nov 14 '18 at 2:51

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53291851%2fmerging-3-lists-in-ascending-order%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

            Crossroads (UK TV series)

            ữḛḳṊẴ ẋ,Ẩṙ,ỹḛẪẠứụỿṞṦ,Ṉẍừ,ứ Ị,Ḵ,ṏ ṇỪḎḰṰọửḊ ṾḨḮữẑỶṑỗḮṣṉẃ Ữẩụ,ṓ,ḹẕḪḫỞṿḭ ỒṱṨẁṋṜ ḅẈ ṉ ứṀḱṑỒḵ,ḏ,ḊḖỹẊ Ẻḷổ,ṥ ẔḲẪụḣể Ṱ ḭỏựẶ Ồ Ṩ,ẂḿṡḾồ ỗṗṡịṞẤḵṽẃ ṸḒẄẘ,ủẞẵṦṟầṓế