On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 06:59:52 -0400, Chris Rebert wrote: >> Surely that's going to be O(N**2)? > > The OP asked for "simple", not "best", "most proper", or "fastest". My > comment was intended to mean that the code was marginally *simpler*, not > faster.
Fair enough, but he also asked for Pythonic, and while some people might argue that "terrible performance" is Pythonic, I hope you wouldn't be one of them! :) If it soothes your ruffled sense of honour *wink*, I think your solution with itertools.chain is probably the best so far. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
