Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #63715
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: L[:] |
| Date | 2014-01-11 16:34 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <larrq2$8qh$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | <1389375507.21198.YahooMailBasic@web163801.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <mailman.5309.1389393544.18130.python-list@python.org> |
On 2014-01-10, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote: > On 1/10/2014 12:38 PM, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote: >> In Python Cookbook, one of the authors (I forgot who) consistently used the "L[:]" idiom like below. If the second line simply starts with "L =" (so no "[:]") only the name "L" would be rebound, not the underlying object. That was the author?? explanation as far as I can remember. I do not get that. Why is the "L[:]" idiom more memory-efficient here? How could the increased efficiency be demonstrated? >> >> #Python 2.7.3 (default, Sep 26 2013, 16:38:10) [GCC 4.7.2] on linux2 >>>>> L = [x ** 2 for x in range(10)] >>>>> L[:] = ["foo_" + str(x) for x in L] > > Unless L is aliased, this is silly code. And if L _is_ aliaised, it's probably trying to be too clever and needs to be fixed. -- Grant
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: L[:] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-10 17:38 -0500 Re: L[:] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-01-11 16:34 +0000
csiph-web