On 2015-04-30, Dave Angel <da...@davea.name> wrote: > On 04/30/2015 07:31 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote: >> On 2015-04-30, Dave Angel <da...@davea.name> wrote: >>> But the real reason I didn't like it was it produced a much larger >>> set of happy_numbers, which could clog memory a lot sooner. For >>> 10**7 items, I had 3250 happy members, and 19630 unhappy. And Jon >>> had 1418854 happy members. >> >> Er, what? You're complaining that mine is less efficient by not >> producing the wrong output? > > It's not intended as a criticism; you solved a different problem. The > problem Cecil was solving was to determine if a particular number is > happy. The problem you solved was to make a list of all values under a > particular limit that are happy. > > Both produce identical results for the Cecil purpose, and yours is > faster if one wants all the values. But if one wants a sampling of > values, his function will fetch them quickly, and even if you want them > all, his function will use much less memory.
I must admit, I'm still not understanding. If you want to know only whether or not int(1e7) is happy then the calculation takes no measurable time or memory. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
