Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The speed gain is significant. Why should I throw away useful information if > I have it?
My thinking was that it wasn't generic enough, and I was looking for a solution that would work for more generic problem. I agree, I shouldn't have used the world "elegant" here, more generic would have been better. > I'd even be willing to convert one arbitrary iterable to a list > to get the length information. > $ python -m timeit -s"a = [1,2,3]*100; b = [4,5,6]*100" "aa = list(a); > items=[None]*(2*len(aa)); items[::2] = aa; items[1::2] = b" > 10000 loops, best of 3: 29.5 usec per loop Yes, I like that, it is as generic as the reduce one. > are more complicated than elegant. Not recommended. You proved your point. Every book and webpage out there says that functional solutions are faster than loops, that's why I tried hard not to use a loop, and "reduce" is considered functional - I should have timed it. Yves. http://www.SollerS.ca -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
