On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:17 PM, James Y Knight <f...@fuhm.net> wrote: > On Nov 5, 2009, at 6:04 PM, geremy condra wrote: >> >> Perhaps my test is flawed in some way? > > Yes: you're testing the speed of something that makes absolutely no sense to > do in a tight loop, so *who the heck cares how fast any way of doing it is*! > > Is this thread over yet? > > James
I'm testing the speed because the claim was made that the pop/add approach was inefficient. Here's the full quote: > The obvious way, for newcomers, of achieving the effect is: > > x = s.pop() > s.add(x) > > ... and that's simply horrible in terms of efficiency. So the > "obvious" way of doing it in Python is wrong(TM), and the "correct" > way of doing it is obscure and raises misleading exceptions. Since I use this in a graph theory library that I am currently trying to scale to handle 300 million node simulations, and this is used in several relevant algorithms, I was concerned. Geremy Condra _______________________________________________ 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
