On Nov 27, 9:58 am, Diez B. Roggisch de...@nospam.web.de wrote:
[...]
so i would like to have a tool to intelligently format the code for me
and make the code more beautiful
and automated.
This is not possible. Consider the following situation:
[...]
Both are semantically radically
On Nov 14, 12:08 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 7:28 am, gil_johnson x7-g5w...@earthlink.net wrote:
Actually there is a rank this post (gotta be careful with that
verbage!) AND a report this post as spam. Of course it only exists
in GG's and not Usenet. I *do* know that the star
On Nov 13, 5:29 pm, kj no.em...@please.post wrote:
[...]
Or it could be set up so that at least n 1 delete votes and no
keep votes are required to get something nixed. Etc.
This seems simpler than all-out moderation.
(all-out moderation? now, there's an oxymoron for ya!)
How about using
On Nov 9, 10:56 pm, Gabriel Genellina wrote:
[much cutting]
def method3a():
newArray = array.array('I', [INITIAL_VALUE]) * SIZE
assert len(newArray)==SIZE
assert newArray[SIZE-1]==INITIAL_VALUE
[more cutting]
So arrays are faster than lists, and in both cases one_item*N
On Nov 6, 8:46 pm, gil_johnson gil_john...@earthlink.net wrote:
I don't have the code with me, but for huge arrays, I have used
something like:
arr[0] = initializer
for i in range N:
arr.extend(arr)
This doubles the array every time through the loop, and you can add
the powers
