Raymond Hettinger <[email protected]> added the comment:
The nested generators approach looks promising. I hope you keep working on that
:-)
I'm not too keen on PR 18427 because it is a massive explosion in code volume
and complexity.
With some continued effort, I expect we'll get to something much simpler and
more maintainable. The existing code already performs well for typical
applications, so there is no need to "go gonzo" and throw a massive wall of
code at the problem. The ensuing maintenance costs would be too high.
To save time and effort, please hold-off on a C implementation until we've
agreed to a pure python version of the algorithm.
For timings, try using strings, tuples, or dataclass instances. Timing integer
inputs isn't representative of how merge() is used and it tends to exaggerate
improvements. For interesting merges, the dominant cost is the comparison step.
By switching to a binary tree arrangement, the payoff we're aiming for is to
avoid the double comparison in the tuple inequality logic — "('a',1)<('b',2)"
tests both 'a'=='b' and 'a'<='b'. I suggest aiming for the simplest possible
code that avoids the double test.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38938>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
