Message65793
| Author | mark.dickinson |
|---|---|
| Recipients | belopolsky, mark.dickinson |
| Date | 2008-04-25.16:55:19 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.285889 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1209142520.32.0.6963312679.issue2690@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
So with this patch, range(10**100) produces an OverflowError: is that
right?
I don't much like this aspect of the change: there are uses for
for i in range(ridiculously_large_number):
...
if condition_that_occurs_early_in_practice:
break |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008-04-25 16:55:20 | mark.dickinson | set | spambayes_score: 0.285889 -> 0.285889 recipients: + mark.dickinson, belopolsky |
| 2008-04-25 16:55:20 | mark.dickinson | set | spambayes_score: 0.285889 -> 0.285889 messageid: <1209142520.32.0.6963312679.issue2690@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008-04-25 16:55:19 | mark.dickinson | link | issue2690 messages |
| 2008-04-25 16:55:19 | mark.dickinson | create | |