From: Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> On 6/24/2018 11:39 AM, Bart wrote:
Bart, I agree that people should not dogpile onto you. As with Rick, I read your posts or not, depending on whether I feel like being entertained at the moment, and usually move on without comment. > I know I'm going to get flak for bringing this up this old issue, "Getting flak" is apparently your goal. This is called trolling. > remember when you used to write a for-loop and it involved creating an > actual list of N integers from 0 to N-1 in order to iterate through > them? Crazy. Yep. We first fixed it in a backward compatible way, then in a code breaking way. The second fix got some rough and rude flak: "This is the end of Python!!!" > But that has long been fixed - or so I thought. You thought right. > When I wrote, today: using an ancient version of Python, > Γ Γ for i in range(100000000): passΓ Γ Γ Γ Γ # 100 million > > on Python 2, it used up 1.8GB, up to the limit of my RAM, and it took > several minutes to regain control of my machine (and it never did > finish). > You don't expect that in 2018 when executing a simple empty loop. And you don't get that when you use a 2018 version of Python, or even the newer 2008 version (3.0.0). Are you really unaware of that? > On Py 2 you have to use xrange for large ranges - that was the fix. Yep. This was the backward compatible fix. So what is your point? > Somebody however must have had to gently and tactfully point out the > issue. For all I know, the craziness of the original design may have prompted some rough and rude comments *BEFORE IT WAS FIXED*. Possibly ditto for the clutziness of the fix -- *BEFORE THE FIX WAS FIXED*. > I'm afraid I'm not very tactful. The above seems politely worded to me. It is just 20 and 10 years too late, and completely pointless, unless 'flak' is your goal. -- Terry Jan Reedy --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-3 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
