On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Steven D'Aprano<st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote: > 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! :)
Indeed not. :) I expected it would be worse performance-wise than the OP's original due to all the intermediate lists that get produced; it shouldn't be used in optimized production code. > If it soothes your ruffled sense of honour *wink*, I think your solution > with itertools.chain is probably the best so far. Except it's not really my solution, it's whoever put it in the itertools docs's. :( But I'm glad to been able to help by pointing the recipe out. :-) Cheers, Chris -- http://blog.rebertia.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list