2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com writes:
> On 2022-07-27 at 17:48:47 +0200,
> Regarding "Re: More efficient code, but slower program,"
> Cecil Westerhof via Python-list wrote:
>
>> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>
>> > Cecil W
On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:58:02 +0200, Cecil Westerhof
declaimed the following:
>It is not very important, but I am just curious.
>
>Original I had in a program:
>values = [*range(100)]
>
>But because it is done quite often I expected that initialising:
>range_list = [*range(100)]
>
>a
On 2022-07-27 at 17:48:47 +0200,
Regarding "Re: More efficient code, but slower program,"
Cecil Westerhof via Python-list wrote:
> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>
> > Cecil Westerhof writes:
> >>values = [*range(100)]
> >
> > In many
It is not very important, but I am just curious.
Original I had in a program:
values = [*range(100)]
But because it is done quite often I expected that initialising:
range_list = [*range(100)]
and then use:
values = range_list.copy()
Would be more efficient. So I tried:
r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> Cecil Westerhof writes:
>>values = [*range(100)]
>
> In many cases, any iterable is just fine and a list is not
> required, just as peudo-random numbers often are just fine and
> real-world entropy is not required.
In this case both are. I mus
