Sorry to be OT, but this is sending my pedantry glands haywire:
On 04/07/2013 08:06, 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,[etc.]
variables. (The number has 180 digits)
That's 63**100. Note that 10**1000000 has 1000001 digits, and is
somewhat smaller than 63**1000000.
Anyway, none of the calculations that has been given takes into account
the fact that names can be /less/ than one million characters long. The
actual number of non-empty strings of length at most 1000000 characters,
that consist only of ascii letters, digits or underscores, and that
don't start with a digit, is
sum(53*63**i for i in range(1000000)) == 53*(63**1000000 - 1)//62
It's perhaps worth mentioning that some non-ascii characters are allowed
in identifiers in Python 3, though I don't know which ones.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
