[MTD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > I've been testing my recursive function against your iterative > function, and yours is generally a quite steady 50% faster on > factorizing 2**n +/- 1 for 0 < n < 60.
If you're still not skipping multiples of 3, that should account for most of it. > I think that, for a challenge, I'll try to make a recursive function that > matche or beats the iterative function -- it's worth the experiment! Don't stop on that one before you succeed ;-) Provided you make no more than one recursive call per factor, you can't make more than log(n, 2) recursive calls in total, and _typically_ far fewer than that. IOW, the number of recursive calls should generally be trivial, and factoring 2**n will be the worst case. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
