On 01/21/2015 02:06 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Irmen de Jong <irmen.nos...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> On 21-1-2015 18:59, Steve Hayes wrote: >> >>> 3. When I started to look at it, I found that strings could be any length >>> and >>> were not limited to swomething arbitrary, like 256 characters. >> Even more fun is that Python's primitive integer type (longs for older >> Python versions) >> has no arbitrary limitation either. >> >> That amazed me at the time I discovered python :) > I hadn't worked with length-limited strings in basically forever > (technically BASIC has a length limit, but I never ran into it; and I > never did much with Pascal), but you're right, arbitrary-precision > integers would have impressed me a lot more if I hadn't first known > REXX. So... is there a way to show that off efficiently? Normally, any > calculation that goes beyond 2**32 has already gone way beyond most > humans' ability to hold the numbers in their heads. > > ChrisA Yes, length-unlimited strings are *extremely* useful in some applications. I remember bitterly cursing Java's string length limit of 2 ** 31 (maybe - 1) on multiple occasions. Python's strings seem to behave like integers in that their size is limited only by available memory.
MMR... -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
