Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #29182

Re: Decorators not worth the effort

References <XnsA0CE7D6F43F18duncanbooth@127.0.0.1> <1017333532.1009581.1347628946603.JavaMail.root@sequans.com> <CAF_E5JY6c+QfYGo9N=0p7HdSa6NX8oL-Hj9gR6=7TayQeOqmoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmoSt84L_kpKWSUPLUJ38wDVp8ukHovd1QkFYUuJAnoeRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF_E5JZR+2RvZXaMUAsS8nND2pcC06+om2WP+ncWfY-4Z=aPtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date 2012-09-15 03:30 +1000
Subject Re: Decorators not worth the effort
From Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.python
Message-ID <mailman.715.1347643815.27098.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:15 AM, andrea crotti
<andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com> wrote:
> The poor algorithm is much more close to the mathematical definition
> than the smarter iterative one..  And in your second version you
> include some ugly caching logic inside it, so why not using a
> decorator then?

I learned Fibonacci as a sequence, not as a recursive definition. So
the algorithm I coded (the non-caching one) is pretty much how I
learned it in mathematics. But yes, you're right that the caching is
inherent to the second version; and yes, that's where a decorator can
make it a LOT cleaner.

As a demo of recursion and decorators, your original function pair is
definitely the best. But if you want to be able to calculate fib(n)
for any n without blowing your stack, my version will scale much more
safely.

But then again, who actually ever needs fibonacci numbers?

ChrisA

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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