Gary Herron: > If you really want a list (as Python defines a list - with all the methods) > then you should use Python's lists. They are quite efficient and convenient:
In CPython they are dynamic arrays, they aren't lists. Try adding elements at the beginning of a list compared to adding elements at the beginning or in the middle of a python "list" and you will see the efficiency differences. > The concept of a linked list if a figment of languages with pointer data > types. You may manage a list with a language without pointers, like *basic* (for students) Scheme. Creating a List data type for Python is possible too, without true pointer like ones found in Pascal. >However, you're much better off if you can use Python's list data structure >rather >than try to emulate an outdated concept in a modern language. Simple lists today aren't much efficient because their pointers break cache locality, they may cause cache trashing, so they may be slower than smarter and more localized structures, like short double linked arrays, etc. But I think lists aren't outdated, they are a mathematical concept too, and they are quite used still. If you want to learn some Computer Science, it's positive to know what linked lists are. If you want to implement algorithms that must process LOT of things, you may find pointers and lists quite necessary today too, see for example: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/knuth00dancing.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Links Python and its data structures aren't the right solutions for all purposes. Bye, bearophile -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
