On 14/03/2016 23:19, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 14/03/2016 22:40, BartC wrote:
Was that in Python? It was /supposed/ to be dreadful. I was making a
case for it to be supported directly.
You mean the huge great long list of hard coded function calls. They
are directly supported. So is the loop. Anything wrong with the Paul
Rubin response?
I tried it. It wasn't bad, but still 1/3 the speed of an if-elif chain
with discrete range-checking.
And as my earlier link showed you often simply don't
need a switch statement in an OO language. Not much point providing
something, much worse optimising it, if it isn't needed in the first place?
I disagree. And presumably so do others as there are so many different
attempts to implement switch, with varying degrees of success. Here's
how I do it outside Python:
switch c
when 'A'..'Z','a'..'z','_' then
++name
when '0'..'9' then
++numeric
when "()[]<>{}" then
++brackets
else
++other
end
Anything so terrible about that that Python needs to keep well clear of
or that you think its users should be deprived of?
Sorry, I'm not going to do that, and I don't expect anyone here to have
to do so either. You will have to take my posts as they are.
Drivel. Any establised member of this community, or any other community
for that matter, will always publish, unless, like the RUE, they've got
something to hide. So you're just a chicken. Where do you buy the
paint from for the streaks down your back?
OK, we've got another Rod Speed! He also gets a kick out of being rude
and insulting to everyone.
on the grounds that speed simply is not
the sole criteria for a language.
I agree with you. But once you've got the language right, then there's
no harm looking at performance. A switch statement like the above can be
executed in a single byte-code.
--
Bartc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
