Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> added the comment:
Does anyone feel like doing a speed comparison between Daniel's C patch and a
version with a direct no-frills iterative version of factorial_part_product
(i.e., just a simple 'for (i = n; i <= m; i += 2) { <multiply running product
by i> }? I have a sneaking suspicion that the iterative version will be faster
even for quite large values of n, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue8692>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
