Chris Angelico wrote: > 2011/8/22 Andreas Löscher <andreas.loesc...@s2005.tu-chemnitz.de>: >> But every improvement on your algorithm will easily result in a >> significant shorter execution time than replaceing a+=1 with a=a+1 will >> ever do. :-) >> > > Agreed. If Python needed a faster alternative to "a=a+1", then I would > recommend an "a.inc()" call or something; some way to avoid looking up > the value of 1.
Keep in mind that ints in Python are objects, not memory locations, and can be shared. If you are hoping for an in-place increment, I invite you to consider the following code and try to predict what it would do: a = 42 b = a b.inc() print(a) -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
