Simon Brunning wrote: > On 9/27/06, tobiah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Suppose I fill an list with 100 million random integers in the range >> of 1 - 65535. Wouldn't I save much memory if all of the ocurrances >> of '12345' pointed to the same integer object? Why should more be made, >> when they all do the same thing, and are not subject to change? > > If you were to drop that list, then to generate another large list of > integers, you'd want to re-use the memory from the first lot, wouldn't > you? > > (BTW, AFAIK, integers are kept seperate from other objects > memory-wise, so memory used for integers won'tr be re-used for other > object types. but memory used for integers can be re-used for *other* > integers. I think.) >
I'm confused now, but yes, I would want to reuse the memory for the other integers. That's why I understand why I get the same id back for small integers, but why limit that to (-5, 257)? Thanks, Toby -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
