dictCost = [{"att1::att2::att3" : att4},{"att1::att2::att3" : att4},{"att1::att2::att3" : att4}]
I know that I can do this in Python, but can I build a dictionary or string-indexd array this way in "straight" FME?
Thanks
Question
Make a Dictionary
I have four attributes coming out of a feature reader and I want to combine three of them into a key with the fourth as a value in a dictionary, something like:
This post is closed to further activity.
It may be an old question, an answered question, an implemented idea, or a notification-only post.
Please check post dates before relying on any information in a question or answer.
For follow-up or related questions, please post a new question or idea.
If there is a genuine update to be made, please contact us and request that the post is reopened.
It may be an old question, an answered question, an implemented idea, or a notification-only post.
Please check post dates before relying on any information in a question or answer.
For follow-up or related questions, please post a new question or idea.
If there is a genuine update to be made, please contact us and request that the post is reopened.
+21- Safer
Hi,
I would look into the string concatanetor or attribute creator for that for the FME way, otherwise you can always use python in a python caller.
I know that I can build the key with the string concatenator. However, I want to build a string indexed array so I can access the value of a given concatenated key. However, FME seems to have only numeric arrays, not a string-indexed array like a Python dictionary.
Hi,
FME cannot build a string-indexed dictionary except in Python script. But in many cases, I think a dictionary-like functionality can be realized via FeatureMerger.
If those three attributes were concatenated, the features itself can be considered as a dictionary. That is to say, you can append "att4" associated with a specified key value to any feature using a FeatureMerger.
Is this approach useless in your situation?
Takashi
Using the FeatureMerger as a dictionary is an excellent concept, and that's what I wound up doing. As you have said, when the:
attr1::attr2::attr3
...key matches, then I have attr4 as the value.
Still, it would be nice to have an FME string-indexed array structure.