On Nov 27, 9:58 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" wrote:
[...]
> > so i would like to have a tool to intelligently format the code for me
> > and make the code more beautiful
> > and automated.
>
> This is not possible. Consider the following situation:
> [...]
> Both are semantically radically different,
On Nov 6, 8:46 pm, gil_johnson wrote:
> >>> arr[0] = initializer
> >>> for i in range N:
> >>> arr.extend(arr)
>
> This doubles the array every time through the loop, and you can add
> the powers of 2 to get the desired result.
> Gil
To al
On Nov 6, 8:46 pm, gil_johnson wrote:
> I don't have the code with me, but for huge arrays, I have used
> something like:
>
> >>> arr[0] = initializer
> >>> for i in range N:
> >>> arr.extend(arr)
>
> This doubles the array every tim
On Nov 9, 10:56 pm, "Gabriel Genellina" wrote:
>
> [much cutting]
>
> def method3a():
> newArray = array.array('I', [INITIAL_VALUE]) * SIZE
> assert len(newArray)==SIZE
> assert newArray[SIZE-1]==INITIAL_VALUE
>
> [more cutting]
>
> So arrays are faster than lists, and in both cases one_it
On Nov 13, 5:29 pm, kj wrote:
[...]
> Or it could be set up so that at least n > 1 "delete" votes and no
> "keep" votes are required to get something nixed. Etc.
>
> This seems simpler than all-out moderation.
>
> ("all-out moderation"? now, there's an oxymoron for ya!)
>
How about using a "rank
On Nov 14, 12:08 pm, r wrote:
> On Nov 14, 7:28 am, gil_johnson wrote:
> Actually there is a "rank this post" (gotta be careful with that
> verbage!) AND a "report this post as spam". Of course it only exists
> in GG's and not Usenet. I *do* know that the s
