> Hey Ben,
>
> first, as expected, the other two answers you received are better. :-)
>
> Sets are much better optimized for things like membership testing than
> are lists. I'm not competent to explain why; indeed, I keep
> overlooking them myself :-(
>
> Unfortunately, the indents got screwed up along the way. But the part
> of my code you asked about was:
>
> for item in list1:
> if item in list2:
> if item + 1 in list1 and item + 1 in list2:
> return True
>
> In some detail:
>
> Consider each item in list1 in turn. If the item isn't in list2, move
> on, as there is no chance of it meeting your test. If the item is in
> list2, then it is pointful to check if your test is met. Given that
> you wanted consecutive numbers, the 'if item + 1 in list1 and item + 1
> in list2' condition checks if both lists (which contain item if we've
> gone this far) also contain item + 1. If they do, you wanted the
> function to return 1 (I changed it to True as more idiomatic). After
> my for loop is a return False which we will only hit if the condition
> you wanted to test was never satisfied.
>
> Does that clarify it?
>
> Finally, your response to Alex would have been much more useful if
> you'd quoted the error rather than just asserting that you got an
> error :-)
>
> Best,
>
> Brian vdB
is it possible to modify the codes to compare the two lists with not
necessarily consecutive numbers?
For example,
lisA=[1,2,5,9]
lisB=[9,5,0]
compare A and b will get true because the two lists have 5 and 9
together though they are indifferent order.
Best Regards,
Robert
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
