[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Carl Banks wrote: > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>>Paul Rubin wrote: >>> >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>>> >>>>>print sum( ([i]*n for i,n in enumerate(seq)), []) >>>> >>>>Wow, I had no idea you could do that. After all the discussion about >>>>summing strings, I'm astonished. >>> >>>Me too ... despite what bearophile said, this is faster than the 2nd >>>example. Nearly as fast as the original loop :) >> >>See if it's still faster if the original sequence is length 1000. >>(Hint: it won't be.) Adding lists with sum has the same performance >>drawback that adding strings does, so it should be avoided. >> >>sum is for adding numbers; please stick to using it that way. >> >>FWIW, the original loop looked perfectly fine and readable and I'd >>suggest going with that over these hacked-up listcomp solutions. Don't >>use a listcomp just for the sake of using a listcomp. > > > Thanks for that, Carl. I think that using the loop is probably what > I'll end up doing. I had no idea that the listcomp thing would be quite > a complicated as it is appearing. I had it in my mind that I was > missing some obvious thing which would create a simple solution :) > Your original solution was the simplest, in that it's easy to understand and maintain.
> Mind you, there are some interesting bits and pieces of code in this > thread! > Right. But Python in general is designed to encourage straightforward expression of straightforward ideas, while retaining the ability to solve complex problems in innovative ways. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
