[Python-Dev] Question regarding: Lib/_markupbase.py
Hello all,
I was having a look at the file: Lib/_markupbase.py (@ 82151), function:
"_parse_doctype_element" and have seen something that has caught my attention:
if '>' in rawdata[j:]:
return rawdata.find(">", j) + 1
Wouldn't it be better to do the following?
pos = rawdata.find(">", j)
if pos != -1:
return pos + 1
Otherwise I think we are scanning rawdata[j:] twice.
Best regards
___
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
Re: [Python-Dev] Question regarding: Lib/_markupbase.py
Same thing in the function: "_parse_doctype_attlist":
if ")" in rawdata[j:]:
j = rawdata.find(")", j) + 1
else:
return -1
I would change it to:
pos = rawdata.find(")", j)
if pos != -1:
j = pos + 1
else:
return -1
Best regards,
Guido
- Ursprüngliche Message -
Von: Fred Drake
An: Developer Developer
CC: "python-dev@python.org"
Gesendet: 15:10 Montag, 11.Februar 2013
Betreff: Re: [Python-Dev] Question regarding: Lib/_markupbase.py
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Developer Developer
wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to do the following?
...
> Otherwise I think we are scanning rawdata[j:] twice.
Yes, that would be better, and avoids a string object creation as well.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
"A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein
___
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
Re: [Python-Dev] Question regarding: Lib/_markupbase.py
Thank you David, I didn't think of the issue tracker.
I have just done it.
Guido
- Ursprüngliche Message -
Von: R. David Murray
An: Developer Developer
CC: "python-dev@python.org"
Gesendet: 16:59 Montag, 11.Februar 2013
Betreff: Re: [Python-Dev] Question regarding: Lib/_markupbase.py
If these don't get reported as tracker issues they will probably get
lost.
--David
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:47:00 +, Developer Developer
wrote:
> Same thing in the function: "_parse_doctype_attlist":
>
> if ")" in rawdata[j:]:
> j = rawdata.find(")", j) + 1
> else:
> return -1
>
> I would change it to:
> pos = rawdata.find(")", j)
> if pos != -1:
> j = pos + 1
> else:
> return -1
>
>
> Best regards,
> Guido
>
>
> - Ursprüngliche Message -
> Von: Fred Drake
> An: Developer Developer
> CC: "python-dev@python.org"
> Gesendet: 15:10 Montag, 11.Februar 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Python-Dev] Question regarding: Lib/_markupbase.py
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Developer Developer
> wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to do the following?
> ...
> > Otherwise I think we are scanning rawdata[j:] twice.
>
> Yes, that would be better, and avoids a string object creation as well.
>
>
> -Fred
>
> --
> Fred L. Drake, Jr.
> "A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein
>
> ___
> 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/rdmurray%40bitdance.com
___
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
Re: [Python-Dev] Question regarding: Lib/_markupbase.py
Sorry, I just thought that: if '>' in rawdata[j:] would do a search, that is, that the implementation of "in" would just reuse/call the implementation of "find" and that the position returned would be used as: -1: not in != -1: in which seemed to me like the easy implementation of "in". That's why I was wondering why to search twice. Now I realize that it doesn't work the way I thought. Thank you for showing me and sorry for the confusion. Best regards, Guido (another Guido ;-) ) - Ursprüngliche Message - Von: Antoine Pitrou An: python-dev@python.org CC: Gesendet: 11:22 Dienstag, 12.Februar 2013 Betreff: Re: [Python-Dev] Question regarding: Lib/_markupbase.py Le Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:02:04 -0800, Guido van Rossum a écrit : > Warning: see http://bugs.python.org/issue17170. Depending on the > length of the string being scanned and the probability of finding the > specific character, the proposed change could actually be a > *pessimization*. OTOH if the character occurs many times, the slice > will actually cause O(N**2) behavior. So yes, it depends greatly on > the distribution of the input data. That said, the savings are still puny unless you spend your time calling str.find(). Regards Antoine. ___ 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/just_another_developer%40yahoo.de ___ 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
