Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> any(map(lambda x: x==42, lst)) > ... > In any case, I question your assumption that the version using map must > automatically "waste memory".
There's also always itertools.imap. > But then, unless these are big complex objects, why are we > micro-optimizing our code anyway? I'm running a Python process, and > it is consuming 6.7MB of memory at the moment. Do I really care about > saving 80 or 100 bytes?, or even 100 kilobytes? I don't think so. The idea is to write code to be assumption-free when possible. A general purpose library function should work efficiently on big complex objects even if some specific application might use it only for small objects. Similarly, application programs that will stay in use for a while should be written to be able to handle large workloads even if the initial requirements are small, unless significant extra development effort is needed. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
