最佳答案

Twitter上有一个不错的帖子，介绍了实现all_equal()函数的各种方法。

给定一个列表输入，最好的提交是:

 t.count(t[0]) == len(t)  

其他方法

下面是线程的结果:

Have groupby() compare adjacent entries. This has an early-out for a mismatch, does not use extra memory, and it runs at C speed. g = itertools.groupby(s) next(g, True) and not next(g, False) Compare two slices offset from one another by one position. This uses extra memory but runs at C speed. s[1:] == s[:-1] Iterator version of slice comparison. It runs at C speed and does not use extra memory; however, the eq calls are expensive. all(map(operator.eq, s, itertools.islice(s, 1, None))) Compare the lowest and highest values. This runs at C speed, doesn't use extra memory, but does cost two inequality tests per datum. min(s) == max(s) # s must be non-empty Build a set. This runs at C speed and uses little extra memory but requires hashability and does not have an early-out. len(set(t))==1. At great cost, this handles NaNs and other objects with exotic equality relations. all(itertools.starmap(eq, itertools.product(s, repeat=2))) Pull out the first element and compare all the others to it, stopping at the first mismatch. Only disadvantage is that this doesn't run at C speed. it = iter(s) a = next(it, None) return all(a == b for b in it) Just count the first element. This is fast, simple, elegant. It runs at C speed, requires no additional memory, uses only equality tests, and makes only a single pass over the data. t.count(t[0]) == len(t)

这是一种简单的方法:

result = mylist and all(mylist[0] == elem for elem in mylist)

这稍微复杂一点，它会引起函数调用开销，但语义更清楚地说明:

def all_identical(seq):
    if not seq:
        # empty list is False.
        return False
    first = seq[0]
    return all(first == elem for elem in seq)

这是一段具有良好的Python性的代码，并且平衡了简单性和明显性，我认为，这应该也适用于相当老的Python版本。

def all_eq(lst):
    for idx, itm in enumerate(lst):
        if not idx:   # == 0
            prev = itm
        if itm != prev:
            return False
        prev = itm
    return True

比使用set()处理序列(而不是可迭代对象)更快的解决方案是简单地计算第一个元素。这假设列表是非空的(但这是微不足道的检查，并决定什么结果应该在一个空列表)

x.count(x[0]) == len(x)

一些简单的基准:

>>> timeit.timeit('len(set(s1))<=1', 's1=[1]*5000', number=10000)
1.4383411407470703
>>> timeit.timeit('len(set(s1))<=1', 's1=[1]*4999+[2]', number=10000)
1.4765670299530029
>>> timeit.timeit('s1.count(s1[0])==len(s1)', 's1=[1]*5000', number=10000)
0.26274609565734863
>>> timeit.timeit('s1.count(s1[0])==len(s1)', 's1=[1]*4999+[2]', number=10000)
0.25654196739196777

如果你对一些更有可读性的东西感兴趣(但当然不是那么高效)，你可以尝试:

def compare_lists(list1, list2):
    if len(list1) != len(list2): # Weed out unequal length lists.
        return False
    for item in list1:
        if item not in list2:
            return False
    return True

a_list_1 = ['apple', 'orange', 'grape', 'pear']
a_list_2 = ['pear', 'orange', 'grape', 'apple']

b_list_1 = ['apple', 'orange', 'grape', 'pear']
b_list_2 = ['apple', 'orange', 'banana', 'pear']

c_list_1 = ['apple', 'orange', 'grape']
c_list_2 = ['grape', 'orange']

print compare_lists(a_list_1, a_list_2) # Returns True
print compare_lists(b_list_1, b_list_2) # Returns False
print compare_lists(c_list_1, c_list_2) # Returns False

你可以:

reduce(and_, (x==yourList[0] for x in yourList), True)

python让你导入operator.and_这样的操作符是相当烦人的。从python3开始，还需要导入functools.reduce。

(您不应该使用此方法，因为如果它发现不相等的值，它不会中断，而是会继续检查整个列表。这里只是作为完整性的回答。)