On Sunday, 26 January 2014 at 14:13:28 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote: > On Sunday, 26 January 2014 at 13:45:32 UTC, matovitch wrote: > >> Anyway, the proposed solutions use twice much memory than a >> simple for loop... > > ??? > Well in a for loop, you only need one more index variable whereas here we store the whole index range.