New submission from Дилян Палаузов <dilyan.palau...@aegee.org>:
Please make bool() on lists at least as fast as len() > 0 on lists is.
The trivial approach would be to define __bool__ on lists, that do something
like "True if self else False".
python3
Python 3.6.3+ (heads/3.6-dirty:2b5cbbb13c, Nov 1 2017, 19:03:09)
[GCC 6.4.1 20171025] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import timeit
>>> timeit.timeit('len([]) > 0')
0.0983404889702797
>>> timeit.timeit('bool([])')
0.15502946823835373
>>> timeit.timeit('True if [] else False')
0.03108721226453781
>>> timeit.timeit('len([1]) > 0')
0.11656427383422852
>>> timeit.timeit('bool([1])')
0.19317257404327393
>>> timeit.timeit('True if [1] else False')
0.057590410113334656
----------
messages: 307294
nosy: dilyan.palauzov
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: bool() vs len() > 0 on lists
type: performance
versions: Python 3.6
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32180>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
