Re: Faster way to do this...
From: Harlin Seritt (harlinseritt_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/02/05
- Next message: mh: "Re: Hardware specs gathering? - platform independant"
- Previous message: Douglas Alan: "Re: yield_all needed in Python"
- In reply to: Warren Postma: "Re: Faster way to do this..."
- Next in thread: Robert Kern: "Re: Faster way to do this..."
- Reply: Robert Kern: "Re: Faster way to do this..."
- Reply: Timo Virkkala: "Re: Faster way to do this..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 1 Mar 2005 17:51:01 -0800
Excellent point Warren. I have been working with Python for about 3
years in all, but only really seriously for about a year. I am still
utterly amazed that near everything that takes me about 5 to 20 lines
of code can be done in 1, 2 or 3 lines of Python code (when done
correctly). It is very frustrating that I am still using Python as
though I would if I were writing Java or C++ code. One day I'll get the
hang of this.
Roy, I like what you showed: nums = [a for a in range(100)] . My
mistake for not expressing my question as well as I should have. Not
only am I looking for a way to fill in 100 spots (more or less) in an
array errrrr... list, but I'd like to be able to do it in intervals of
2, 4, 8 etc. as well as other things.
Thanks,
Harlin
- Next message: mh: "Re: Hardware specs gathering? - platform independant"
- Previous message: Douglas Alan: "Re: yield_all needed in Python"
- In reply to: Warren Postma: "Re: Faster way to do this..."
- Next in thread: Robert Kern: "Re: Faster way to do this..."
- Reply: Robert Kern: "Re: Faster way to do this..."
- Reply: Timo Virkkala: "Re: Faster way to do this..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|