On 5/2/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is one of the reasons why I'm pushing for some string methods on > the bytes object. Even if bytes resize themselves quickly during > 'extension', a single allocation with a single pass copy will be far > faster. It probably won't be quite as convenient as "".join() (if there > isn't a literal), but keeping the .join method seems to be a winner (if > only because it saves people from having to learn a different method for > unicode and bytes).
I wonder if that's really true. After all you still pay the overhead for the list. In fact, here's a challenge for you: implement += on bytes to be as fast as the list append + later join; or prove that it can't be done. Regarding your writing vs. my reading speed: (a) I hope you know the quote about "I apologize for this long letter but I don't have the time to make it shorter"; (b) I was referring to the discussion between you and MvL; that was definitely going too fast for anyone else to read it all. It really isn't necessary to do a point-by-point reply of everything the other person said. (And I need to heed this advice myself too!) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
