Rotwang wrote: > Sorry to be OT, but this is sending my pedantry glands haywire:
We are mostly pedants, too -- so this is well-deserved... > 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. I think we have a winner ;) > 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
