Re: L[:]

Path	csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!goblin2!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!panix!not-for-mail
From	Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Subject	Re: L[:]
Date	Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:34:11 +0000 (UTC)
Organization	PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines	18
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>
NNTP-Posting-Host	c-24-118-110-103.hsd1.mn.comcast.net
X-Trace	reader1.panix.com 1389458051 9041 24.118.110.103 (11 Jan 2014 16:34:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date	Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:34:11 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent	slrn/1.0.1 (Linux)
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.python:63715

Show key headers only | View raw

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

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