On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 03:06:25 -0400, Dave Angel wrote: > On 07/04/2013 01:32 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> > <SNIP> >> >> Well, if I ever have more than 63,000,000 variables[1] in a function, >> I'll keep that in mind. >> > <SNIP> >> >> [1] Based on empirical evidence that Python supports names with length >> at least up to one million characters long, and assuming that each >> character can be an ASCII letter, digit or underscore. >> >> > Well, the number wouldn't be 63,000,000. Rather it'd be 63**1000000 > > I probably have it wrong, but I think that looks like: > > 859,122,207,646,748,720,415,212,786,780,258,721,683,540,870,960,267,706,738,947,655,539,422,295,787,680,882,091,181,482,626,114,653,152,637,456,091,641,990,601,474,111,018,521,295,858,424,750,289,461,372,414,431,396,326,232,796,267,104,001 > > variables. (The number has 180 digits)
I think that's more than 63,000,000 :-) Thanks Dave and Peter for the correction. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
