[John Arbash Meine]
So 'for x in s: break' is about 2x faster than next(iter(s)) and 3x faster than (iter(s).next()).
The first version uses direct calls for the for-loop opcodes. The other two have to do functions/method look-up and make a pure python function call (neither is very fast). FWIW, a "choose" method had been previously proposed, discussed and rejected. I don't find the optimization issue to be very interesting in the case of retrieving an arbitrary element. This isn't the kind of thing that typically appears in an inner-loop; afterall, if you've retrieved an arbitrary element without removing it, then successive calls to "choose" could potentially retrieve the exact same element again and again. Raymond _______________________________________________ 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
