Jean-Paul Calderone 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 ? > > I've benchmarked string copying via slicing against views implemented using > buffer(). For certain use patterns, views are absolutely significantly > faster.
of course, but buffers don't support many string methods, so I'm not sure how that's applicable to this case. (and before anyone says "let's fix that, then", please read earlier messages). </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
