Re: Decorators not worth the effort

Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Date	2012-09-18 08:14 -0700
References	(3 earlier) <CAPTjJmoSt84L_kpKWSUPLUJ38wDVp8ukHovd1QkFYUuJAnoeRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF_E5JZR+2RvZXaMUAsS8nND2pcC06+om2WP+ncWfY-4Z=aPtg@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.715.1347643815.27098.python-list@python.org> <abram3Fl44sU3@mid.individual.net> <mailman.871.1347974704.27098.python-list@python.org>
Message-ID	<2c1df918-2d60-418b-9ecc-da1423a8a113@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Decorators not worth the effort
From	88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Chris Angelico於 2012年9月18日星期二UTC+8下午9時25分04秒寫道：
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> wrote:
> 
> > On 2012-09-14, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >> But then again, who actually ever needs fibonacci numbers?
> 
> >
> 
> > If it should happen that your question is not facetious:
> 
> >
> 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number#Applications
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't entirely facetious. I know there are a few cases where
> 
> they're needed, but I think they're calculated far more often to
> 
> demonstrate algorithms than because you actually have use of them. :)
> 
> 
> 
> Though it's as well to mention these sorts of things now and then. I
> 
> remember one time writing up something or other, and my dad was
> 
> looking over my shoulder and asked me why I'd written a little
> 
> Pascal's Triangle generator. He didn't know that it had direct
> 
> application to whatever-it-was. And unfortunately I don't remember
> 
> what I was even writing at the time :)
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisA

I would suggest one should solve the Fibnaci(50000) first and fast in Python.

Then one can think about computing c(n,k) in Python for large n.


Then

Thread

Re: Decorators not worth the effort Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmichel@sequans.com> - 2012-09-14 11:28 +0200
  Re: Decorators not worth the effort Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2012-09-14 11:26 +0000
    Re: Decorators not worth the effort andrea crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 15:12 +0100
    Re: Decorators not worth the effort Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-09-15 00:41 +1000
      Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-14 09:37 -0700
      Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-14 09:37 -0700
    Re: Decorators not worth the effort andrea crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 17:15 +0100
    Re: Decorators not worth the effort Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-09-15 03:30 +1000
      Re: Decorators not worth the effort Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-09-18 13:19 +0000
        Re: Decorators not worth the effort Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-09-18 23:25 +1000
          Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-18 08:14 -0700
          Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-18 08:14 -0700
    RE: Decorators not worth the effort "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-09-14 23:14 +0000
  Re: Decorators not worth the effort Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-09-14 12:01 +0000
    Re: Decorators not worth the effort Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2012-09-14 08:06 -0500
      Re: Decorators not worth the effort Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-14 18:13 -0700
  Re: Decorators not worth the effort Ulrich Eckhardt <ulrich.eckhardt@dominolaser.com> - 2012-09-14 13:49 +0200

csiph-web