Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #89772
| References | (3 earlier) <87d22lx38x.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <55432557$0$12994$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <87383fo062.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <87twvvmigr.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <5544A85F.5080805@davea.name> |
|---|---|
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
| Date | 2015-05-02 09:31 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Python is not bad ;-) |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.11.1430580760.12865.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> wrote:
> I can't see how that is worth doing. The recursive version is already a
> distortion of the definition of factorial that I learned. And to force it
> to be recursive and also contort it so it does the operations in the same
> order as the iterative version, just to gain performance?
>
> If you want performance on factorial, write it iteratively, in as
> straightforward a way as possible. Or just call the library function.
Or if you really want to write it functionally:
from functools import reduce
from operator import mul
def product(iterable):
return reduce(mul, iterable, 1)
def factorial(n):
return product(range(1, n+1))
For Python 2, delete the first import and replace range with xrange.
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 09:07 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-04-30 19:10 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-04-30 13:16 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 20:52 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 13:30 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-01 17:03 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-01 09:47 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-01 19:56 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-05-02 19:44 +1200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 10:26 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 12:10 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 19:25 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 12:58 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-05-02 06:22 -0400
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 20:42 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-02 13:07 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 21:21 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-02 13:32 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 14:42 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:45 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-03 01:55 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 16:50 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 18:53 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 11:00 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 11:17 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-02 18:22 +0100
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 12:29 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 11:33 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-05-02 06:35 -0400
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 13:12 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:31 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-01 15:56 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 13:10 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 08:03 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 18:11 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-04-30 19:59 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 22:05 +0200
csiph-web