tobiah wrote: > 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 > It's what's called an "implementation detail". Don't even worry about it until you need to shave every microsecond off your program's execution time, as reliance on such details reduces portability.
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
