On Jan 24, 9:26 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If you really have a 2GB file and only 2GB of RAM, I suggest that you don't
> > hold your breath.
>
> I am limited with resources. Unfortunately.
As long as you have at least as much disc space spare as you need to
hold a copy of the file then this
return d["p"]
It is left as an exercise to the reader as to why this code will not
work on Py3K
Nicko
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Aug 30, 7:00 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can also generate the files that are in one directory but ot the
> other with
>
> (afiles | bfiles) - (afiles & bfiles)
Or just (afiles ^ bfiles).
Nicko
--
(lambda f: lambda *a:f(f,*a))(
lambda f,l,
On Apr 10, 1:10 pm, "Nicko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you expect to do exact-match look-up where the keys are not unique
> then build a dictionary containing 'set' objects which are the sets of
> records which have the given key. This lets you neatly find
Jim wrote:
> I have an application that will maintain an in-memory database in the
> form of a list of lists. Does anyone know of a way to search for and
> retreive "records" from such a structure?
The answer very much depends on the manner in which you want to do the
look-up. If you only need t
th some
significant rounding errors. 9/64 is a fairly poor (6 bit)
approximation of 1/7 but the principle is the same as the solution I
proposed above.
Nicko
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Feb 2, 4:21 pm, "Bart Ogryczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:00 pm, "Nicko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > precision and the answer that they were looking for was:
> > a = (b * 045L) >> 32
> > Note that the
e constant there is in octal.
Nicko
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
gs(a, b, c):
> return a + b + c
> for i in range(1000):
> x = addThreeThings("aaa", "bbb", "ccc")
I note that in both of those tests you didn't actually ever realise the
concatenated string. Can you give us figures for these tests having
force
Steve Holden wrote:
> Nicko wrote:
> > Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> >>if you cannot refrain from pulling arguments out of your ass, you not
> >>really the right person to talk about hygiene.
> >
> > I'm impressed but your mature argument. Clearly, in the fa
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Nicko wrote:
>
> > ... In the case of the idiom "for i in
> > range(x):..." there absolutely no utility whatsoever in creating and
> > recording the list of objects.
>
> for short lists, both objects create the *same* number of objec
times also on the phase of the moon)
Using range() is only faster on lists so small then the cost is tiny
anyway. On any substantial loop it is quite a bit slower and has been
since python 2.3
Nicko
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
not a tiny
company. Most security breaches (according to the FBI/CSI computer
crime survey) are perpetrated by insiders. If you log in using telnet,
and have to enter passwords that allow configurations to be changed,
then anyone on the local net can get those passwords. Use SSH instead.
Even
13 matches
Mail list logo
