BTW, The theme is Mac-like

and another thing , even numerical and string data types have the same behavior and are implemented in the say way.
For Strings , it doesn’t matter because they’re immutable anyway so you can’t see the effect of changing it somewhere and seeing this change every where through different variables referencing the same object.
and the same thing will apply for integers.

you can check this by

x = "test"
y = x
print id(x)
print id(y)

.. BTW , i love the elegance of your theme.

$myArray = array(1,2,3);
$yourArray = $myArray ; // here $yourArray is new copy of $myArray .. "deeply" copied
$yourArray[0] = 3;
$myArray[0] =2;
var_dump($myArray); // first element will be 2
var_dump($yourArray);//first element will be 3

Again thanks for your participation KAM

Maybe python’s everything-is-so-easy behavior may tell you that it’s assigning by value but – a big one is coming – think again , what would things be like if you are assigning by value ? Things will be OK until you need a reference to your objects – as in passing by reference – so python will have to give developers some way to extract the reference – yeah i know pointers and the big “&” is popping up now – and Oops we are hit again by the complex and hazardous pointer programming which some programmers hate – those girls – and we have noway to avoid it.
Now think of the world with assign by reference , it’s a pretty nice and girlish one.

The same behavior exist in Java and i’m sure it’ll be in every other programming language that wants to avoid the pointer programming – unless i’m mistaken-.

Check this page for how to use the syntax highlighter ..
I don’t want to search any pre-known algorithms before running out of trials

Thanks for your help

And by the way , Prime Number Generation is a huge topic and a topic under research for centuries . So , yes there must be a better solution.

BTW, someone -using C#- had time limit exceed and 14 M memory usage

There must be a better solution
Thanks KAM I Saved .2 Mega

times = input()
while times > 0:
    times -= 1
    limits = raw_input()
    limits = limits.split(" ")
    downLimit = int(limits[0])
    upLimit = int(limits[1])
    numsList = []
    if downLimit < = 2:
        numsList = [i for i in range(2,upLimit) if  i == 2 or i % 2]
    else:
        numsList = [i for i in range(downLimit,upLimit) if  i % 2 ]

    for oddNumber in numsList:
        primeNumber = True;
        for number in range( 2 , oddNumber / 2):
            if oddNumber % number == 0:
                primeNumber = False;
                break;

        if primeNumber:
            print oddNumber

First about your first note:
“python-strangely” … Actually , i can say “AlSayedGamal – strangely – haven’t already known about that yet ”

Second some obvious – and stupid – optimizations:

1 -
numsList = [i for i in range(downLimit,upLimit) if (i%2 or i==2) and i != 1 and i!=0]
do you know that you’re asking every single element in the list created by range(x,y) if it’s 1 and if it’s 0 and if it’s 2 .. is it possible to have more than 0 , 1 , 2 elements …. just start from 3 and then include 2 later ( of course after checking you downLimit to see where should you start )

2 -
if not primeNumber:
primesList.remove( oddNumber )
begad alot of time will be wasted here (unless python’s implementation is caching the last list accesses , you can just print the primes – and this is exactly what you did later – since the list itself is of no good later

if primeNumber:
print THE_PRIME

3 – Use another approach
Just keep incrementing from your donwLimit to your upLimit in a loop and do all the possible checks in a nested loop – which will safe you the overhead of creating a zillion list.