In article <kkfodv$f5m$1...@news.albasani.net>, Walter Hurry <walterhu...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:29:17 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > > > There are actually a lot of optimizations done, so it might turn out to > > be O(n) in practice. But strictly in the Python code, yes, this is > > definitely O(n*n). > > In any event, Janssen should cease and desist offering advice here if he > can't do better than that. That's a little harsh. Sure, it was a "sub-optimal" way to write the code (for all the reasons people mentioned), but it engendered a good discussion. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
