"Gregory P. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've never liked the "".join([]) idiom for string concatenation; in my > > opinion it violates the principles "Beautiful is better than ugly." and > > "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.". > > (And perhaps several others.) To that end I've submitted patch #1569040 > > to SourceForge: > > > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1569040&group_id=5470&atid=305470 > > This patch speeds up using + for string concatenation. > > yay! i'm glad to see this. i hate the "".join syntax. i still write > that as string.join() because thats at least readable). it also fixes > the python idiom for fast string concatenation as intended; anyone > whos ever written code that builds a large string value by pushing > substrings into a list only to call join later should agree. > > mystr = "prefix" > while bla: > #... > mystr += moredata
Regardless of "nicer to read", I would just point out that Guido has stated that Python will not have strings implemented as trees. Also, Python 3.x will have a data type called 'bytes', which will be the default return of file.read() (when files are opened as binary), which uses an over-allocation strategy like lists to get relatively fast concatenation (on the order of lst1 += lst2). - Josiah _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
