Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Craig-Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What you are missing is that if the recv ever returns no bytes at all
> > then the other end has closed the connection. So something like this
> > is the correct thing to write :-
> >
> > data = ""
> > while True:
> > new = client.recv(256)
> > if not new:
> > break
> > data += new
>
> This is a good case for the iter() function:
>
> buf = cStringIO.StringIO()
> for new in iter(partial(client.recv, 256), ''):
> buf.write(new)
> data = buf.getvalue()
>
> Note that appending to a string is almost never a good idea, since it
> can result in quadratic allocation.
My aim was clear exposition rather than the ultimate performance!
Anyway str += was optimised in python 2.4 or 2.5 (forget which) wasn't
it? I'm not convinced it will be any worse performing than
cStringIO.StringIO.write() which effectively appends to a string in
exactly the same way.
This test agrees with me!
$ python -m timeit -s 's = ""' 'for i in xrange(100000): s+="x"'
10 loops, best of 3: 23.8 msec per loop
$ python -m timeit -s 'from cStringIO import StringIO; s=StringIO()' 'for i in
xrange(100000): s.write("x")'
10 loops, best of 3: 56 msec per loop
--
Nick Craig-Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
