Nick Coghlan wrote: > I believe you're thinking about something far more sophisticated than what I'm > suggesting. I'm just talking about a Python data type in a standard library > module that trades off slower performance with smaller strings (due to extra > method call overhead) against improved scalability (due to avoidance of > copying strings around).
have you done any benchmarking on this ? </F> _______________________________________________ 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
