On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Jörg Wölke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #!/usr/bin/env python
>
> l=1*[1]
> for i in range(2,len(l)):
>if l[i] == 1:
> print i
> for j in range(i+1,len(l)):
> if j%i == 0:
for j in range(2*i, len(l), i):
would be much faster
* Richard Lovely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081123 11:35]:
> I've tried a the sieve of erath-whatever as in test_generator,
> implemented using itertools functions, but it hit max recusion depth
> somewhere before 1000 primes, and I'm after millions of primes.
I found an old implementation for some exer
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Richard Lovely
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please don't suggest changing languages. I like python. Although if
> you want to write an extension for me, and provide the source and a
> makefile, please feel free. I have a MinGW install that's doing
> nothing. (Just
On a small side note, the docs say array.array is supposed to be
efficient. Testing has shown in this function, a list is faster (at
least for x<10). A set is faster still - at least over the same
range on my computer,, but you can't guarantee ordering, which makes
it inconsistent - an
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:13:18 +, Richard Lovely wrote:
> I'm pretty new to code optimisation, so I thought I'd ask you all for
> advice.
>
> I'm making an iterative prime number generator. This is what I've got so
> far:
>
> Code: Select all
> import math, array
>
> def count2(start_at=0):
>
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Richard Lovely
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm pretty new to code optimisation, so I thought I'd ask you all for advice.
>
> I'm making an iterative prime number generator.
You might be interested in this recipe and discussion:
http://code.activestate.com/recipes
I'm pretty new to code optimisation, so I thought I'd ask you all for advice.
I'm making an iterative prime number generator. This is what I've got so far:
Code: Select all
import math, array
def count2(start_at=0):
'Yield every third integer, beginning with start_at'
# this has been tes
