Re: <OPTION

Robert Cummings wrote: > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 13:51 +0200, Jochem Maas wrote: >>>>>> range(1, 31) >>>>> Memory waster ;) >>>> any idea as to what the damage is as compared to the classic for loop? >>> Given that a variable probably costs X and that any variable cane be >>> stored as Y in an array, and an array would cost Z where the Z = X * Y _ >>> 1 (Y element + 1 for the array container itself). >>> >>> Then the range format would cost 31 + 1 (the array itself + 31 entries) >>> whereas the for loop would cost 1 + 1 (cost to store i + cost to store >>> endpoint comparison. Thus the damage is about 15*. Given general >>> computer science consideration, this is a constant and thus practically >>> neglible. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Rob (ps. the above may be completely incoherent since I'm completely >>> drunk atm after celebrating two friends birthdays tonight). >> not a bad explainantion then ;-) it's only the last bit I didn't quite follow :-) > > *heheh* It makes sense to me, though my head still hurts from last > night :) > > Which part exactly did you not quite follow? this bit: Given general computer science consideration, this is a constant and thus practically neglible. > > Cheers, > Rob.