Op Thursday 30 Apr 2015 00:38 CEST schreef Ian Kelly: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Cecil Westerhof <ce...@decebal.nl> wrote: >> Op Wednesday 29 Apr 2015 21:57 CEST schreef Ian Kelly: >>> And although it's not clear to me what this is supposed to be >>> doing, you probably no longer need the middle term if the >>> intention is to continue deleting all the way to the end of the >>> list (if it is then I think you have a bug in the existing >>> implementation, since the last item in the list can never be >>> deleted). >> >> What do you mean by this? Executing: >> lucky_numbers(5) >> gives: >> [1, 3] >> >> So the last element (5) is deleted. > > Off by one error on my part. This is why negative skip values on > ranges and slices are not recommended: they're confusing. :-) > > In that case you can definitely omit the middle term of the slice, > which will be both more concise and clearer in intent, though > probably not significantly faster.
It is certainly nit faster. It is even significantly slower. With the middle term lucky_numbers(int(1e6)) takes 0.13 seconds. Without it takes 14.3 seconds. Hundred times as long. -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list