On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:21:47 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote: >> For ten items, though, is it really faster to muck around with array >> lengths than just copying the data over? Array copies are extremely fast >> on modern processors. > > My mistake, he actually wants l1[10:] copied. So you might be copying a > huge amount of data, not just ten items. > > Or if you prefer, replace 10 by 100000000. >
If you need to scale that direction, it's time to install a database. >> Programmer time and processor time being what it is, I still think my >> answer is the correct one. No, it's not what he says he wants, but it is >> what he needs. > > You missed the point that your suggestion gives radically different > behaviour to what the OP indicated he is using. He mutates the list in > place, you rebind the list's name. That has *very* different semantics. > > > The OP may not care about the difference, but if he does require the > first behaviour, then your solution doesn't help. > Correct. -- Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
