sorry for the bad grammar. I didn't investigate the StackLess Python, but as I have been reading about it (so if it was correct), the recursionlimit should not be the problem using StackLess Python. >From my expirience with python and recursions, it works well to the depth of about 200 to 500 (depending od algorithm and purpose). I think that in this case it should work well with about 500. If you need a bigger string, then lett it repeat and merge the different strings. You could also generate multidimensional hash.
Best Regards On Apr 13, 2:24 pm, Michael Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > azrael wrote: > > I think that this would be very silly to do. bad kung foo. The > > recoursion technique would be more satisfying. You sholud consider > > that this would take about 4 lines to write. Also be avare of the > > default recoursion depth in python wich is 1000. you can get and set > > the recoursion limit hrough importing the "sys" module and using > > getrecoursionlimit() and setrecoursionlimit(). > > Well, you'd have to spell sys.getrecursionlimit() correctly, but yes ;) > > At least in the past, raising the recursion limit past a certain point > would result in the CPython interpreter crashing, so it's not completely > scalable. > -- > Michael Hoffman -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
