>> Don't forget the *cost* in terms of code bloat. Plus, I asked for a >> patch. Where is it? This is not Santa Claus's email address. You're >> expected to contribute more than a wish. > > first off all, that's not the politest way to put it, especially since i have > submitted some patches before. second, i've already given a 3-line > implementation in python. it would only take two minutes to convert > it to C, save the unit tests. third, i'm busy over my head studying of > my exams. forth, due to lack of public interest, i might as well > withdraw this.
It's not that *you* were asked to contribute it. Guido just pointed out that, without a patch, it won't get implemented. More so if the patch is as trivial as you expect it to be. We *all* are under time pressure - I am busy giving exams, for example. So to your original question "why not optimize it?", there is a very simple answer: there is no ready implementation available. > besides, that's not the point. i'm only saying there's no reason that > testing for containment in range objects (which are no longer lists), > should be O(N), when it can easily be made O(1) in under 10 lines of C > code. Nothing is easy. Neal Norwitz was working on implementing xrange with longs, and it took an entire week. The patch is still sitting on SF somewhere. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
