On Apr 24, 11:09 pm, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:31:15 -0300, Rogério Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > declaimed the following in comp.lang.python: > > > a = [i for i in range(0,n+1)] > > Uhm... At least in 2.4 and earlier, range() returns a list... No > need for the list-comp in that era... range() also begins with 0 > > > > >>> n = 5 > >>> a = range(n+1) > >>> a > [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] > > So just > > a = range(n+1) > > could be used. Of course, if using a version where range() and xrange() > have been unified... > > >>> c = list(xrange(n+1)) > >>> c > [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] > > -- > Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/ > (Bestiaria Support Staff: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > HTTP://www.bestiaria.com/
You're talking hardware-native, which machines don't guarantee. Python can in another dimension of machine compatibility. Stacks are hardware native, the location of an array is not. Python can retrieve your stack in higher dimensions. Fortunately, Python's community is sturdy against counterproductivity en masse, so it's okay to hairbrain it. Cover features of improvements, though, and you might get a Bayes Net change to make and courses to steer. The community values the flexibility of machine- independency too. However, real numbers are not integers, so opinion mass of integer algorithms may favor C. But you just need micro-sales (and scales!) to examine the future of Python. Welcome to our group. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
