Unlock Now list of brunette pornstars high-quality live feed. Complimentary access on our video portal. Get lost in in a broad range of chosen content featured in crystal-clear picture, designed for exclusive streaming connoisseurs. With new releases, you’ll always remain up-to-date with the latest and greatest media personalized for you. Encounter themed streaming in gorgeous picture quality for a genuinely engaging time. Get into our content portal today to check out one-of-a-kind elite content with free of charge, subscription not necessary. Look forward to constant updates and uncover a galaxy of one-of-a-kind creator videos developed for high-quality media admirers. Make sure to get uncommon recordings—begin instant download 100% free for the public! Keep watching with hassle-free access and jump into first-class distinctive content and get started watching now! Discover the top selections of list of brunette pornstars exclusive user-generated videos with dynamic picture and select recommendations.

I have a piece of code here that is supposed to return the least common element in a list of elements, ordered by commonality In order to instantiate, you need some realizations (implementations) of that interface. From collections import counter c = counte.

The first, [:], is creating a slice (normally often used for getting just part of a list), which happens to contain the entire list, and thus is effectively a copy of the list List is an interface, you cannot instantiate an interface, because interface is a convention, what methods should have your classes The second, list(), is using the actual list type constructor to create a new list which has contents equal to the first list.

The first way works for a list or a string

The second way only works for a list, because slice assignment isn't allowed for strings Other than that i think the only difference is speed It looks like it's a little faster the first way Try it yourself with timeit.timeit () or preferably timeit.repeat ().

However, it looks like tolist() is optimized for columns of python scalars because i found that calling list() on a column was 10 times slower than calling tolist() For the record, i was trying to convert a column of json strings in a very large dataframe into a list and list() was taking its sweet time. If your list of lists comes from a nested list comprehension, the problem can be solved more simply/directly by fixing the comprehension Please see how can i get a flat result from a list comprehension instead of a nested list?

The most popular solutions here generally only flatten one level of the nested list

See flatten an irregular (arbitrarily nested) list of lists for solutions that. A list uses an internal array to handle its data, and automatically resizes the array when adding more elements to the list than its current capacity, which makes it more easy to use than an array, where you need to know the capacity beforehand. A list of lists would essentially represent a tree structure, where each branch would constitute the same type as its parent, and its leaf nodes would represent values. The notation list<?> means a list of something (but i'm not saying what)

Since the code in test works for any kind of object in the list, this works as a formal method parameter Using a type parameter (like in your point 3), requires that the type parameter be declared The java syntax for that is to put <t> in front of the function This is exactly analogous to declaring formal parameter.

You must be sure that at runtime the list contains nothing but customer objects

Critics say that such casting indicates something wrong with your code You should be able to tweak your type declarations to avoid it But java generics is too complicated, and it is not perfect Sometimes you just don't know if there is a pretty solution to satisfy the compiler.

OPEN