On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:30 PM, geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
I was talking mainly from a theoretical standpoint, and because the library I'm working on is designed to work seamlessly over the network. In those cases, where the set the user is working with is actually a proxy object across the wire, the time to acquire the locks, remove the object, release the locks, reacquire the locks, add the object, then rerelease the locks is *significantly* more expensive than just noting the set hasn't changed and returning a cached object from it. -- Chris _______________________________________________ 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
