On 06.09.2012 16:39, Chris Angelico wrote: > In any case, it'll be far FAR more useful than arguing from > totally random, or random word selection, or anything. > > Who's game?
Okay, patched against Python 3.2.3: http://pastebin.com/PRRN53P6 To invoke display of the stats, compare the string "pleasedumpstats" as LHO, i.e.: "pleasedumpstats" < "" Just ran it against a big script of mine which takes the stringified IMDb text files, parses it and dumps it into a sqlite3 database. Surprisingly little string comparisons however (the sqlite module without doubt uses its own routines internally). Although the database in the end has about 2 million records, these were the stats: strCmpEq 1017 strCmpLt 2802 strCmpGt 1633 strCmpTc 16219 strCmpCc 8570 which means 5452 comparisons of which 19% were equal and the rest inequal. Average string length is about 2.97 characters and aborted was in average after 1.57 characters. Maybe someone has a test which makes heavier use of string comparison. I don't want to make up something, however, since this is (by definition) going to be artificial. Best regards, Johannes -- >> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt? > Zumindest nicht öffentlich! Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage. - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1...@speranza.aioe.org> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
