No I'm well aware that there is no deep copy of the objects and the lists
only keep references to the objects and in essence they have the same
objects in there. But this doesn't mean they are the same list.
Modifications to slices are not written back to the original list.
x = range(5)
y = x[1:3]
Hi,
sth == something :) sorry for the abbreviation. I'm talking about the
shallow copy, still it's a copy. Unnecessary in my case and the worst part
in my scenario is the creation (allocation) and deletion of a very large
number of lists of moderate size (a few hundred objects) generated due to
sl
Ahhh yes! that's exactly it. Thanks for pointing out!
Themis
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Tim Golden wrote:
> tbour...@doc.ic.ac.uk wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was looking for a facility similar to slices in python library that
> would
> > avoid the implicit creation of a new list and copy of
Hi,
I was looking for a facility similar to slices in python library that would
avoid the implicit creation of a new list and copy of elements that is the
default behaviour. Instead I'd rather have a lazy iteratable object on the
original sequence. Well, in the end I wrote it myself but I was wond
