Terry Reedy wrote: > John Arbash Meinel wrote: >> So 'for x in s: break' is about 2x faster than next(iter(s)) and 3x >> faster than (iter(s).next()). >> I was pretty surprised that it was 30% faster than "for x in s: pass". I >> assume it has something to do with a potential "else:" statement? > > for x in s: pass > > iterates through *all* the elements in s and leaves x bound to the > arbritrary *last* one instead of the arbitrary *first* one. For a large > set, this would be a lot slower, not just a little. > > fwiw, I think the use case for this is sufficiently rare that it does > not need a separate method just for this purpose. > > tjr
The point of my test was that it was a set with a *single* item, and 'break' was 30% faster than 'pass'. Which was surprising. Certainly the difference is huge if there are 10k items in the set. John =:-> _______________________________________________ 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
