I've uploaded a new patch to Sourceforge in response to feedback:
* I purged all // comments and fixed all 80 characters added by my
patch, as per Neil Norwitz.
* I added a definition of max() for those who don't already have one,
as per [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It now compiles cleanly on Linux
Larry Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
The machine is dual-core, and was quiescent at the time. XP's scheduler
is hopefully good enough to just leave the process running on one core.
It's not. Go into the task manager (accessable via Ctrl+Alt+Del by
default) and change the process'
Larry Hastings wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MAL's pybench would probably be better for this presuming it does some
addition with string operands.
or stringbench.
I ran 'em, and they are strangely consistent with pystone.
With concat, stringbench is
This patch looks really nice to use here at CCP. Our code is full of string
contcatenations so I will probably try to apply the patch soon and see what it
gives us in a real life app. The floating point integer cache was also a big
win. Soon, standard python won't be able to keep up with the
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MAL's pybench would probably be better for this presuming it does some
addition with string operands.
or stringbench.
I ran 'em, and they are strangely consistent with pystone.
With concat, stringbench is ever-so-slightly faster
Nicko van Someren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not like having this patch is going to force anyone to change
the way they write their code. As far as I can tell it simply offers
better performance if you choose to express your code in some common
ways. If it speeds up pystone by 5.5%
Nicko van Someren wrote:
If it speeds up pystone by 5.5% with such minimal down side
I'm hard pressed to see a reason not to use it.
can you tell me where exactly pystone does string concatenations?
/F
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Fredrik Nicko van Someren wrote:
If it speeds up pystone by 5.5% with such minimal down side I'm hard
pressed to see a reason not to use it.
Fredrik can you tell me where exactly pystone does string
Fredrik concatenations?
I wondered about that as well. While I'm not
On 7 Oct 2006, at 09:17, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Nicko van Someren wrote:
If it speeds up pystone by 5.5% with such minimal down side
I'm hard pressed to see a reason not to use it.
can you tell me where exactly pystone does string concatenations?
No, not without more in depth examination,
Gregory P. Smith wrote:
I've never liked the .join([]) idiom for string concatenation; in my
opinion it violates the principles Beautiful is better than ugly. and
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it..
(And perhaps several others.) To that end I've submitted
Steve Holden wrote:
instance.method(*args) == type.method(instance, *args)
You can nowadays spell this as str.join(, lst) - no need to import a
whole module!
except that str.join isn't polymorphic:
str.join(u,, [1, 2, 3])
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in
Greg have you run any generic benchmarks such as pystone to get a
Greg better idea of what the net effect on typical python code is?
MAL's pybench would probably be better for this presuming it does some
addition with string operands.
Skip
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg have you run any generic benchmarks such as pystone to get a
Greg better idea of what the net effect on typical python code is?
MAL's pybench would probably be better for this presuming it does some
addition with string operands.
or stringbench.
/F
Gregory P. Smith wrote:
I've never liked the .join([]) idiom for string concatenation; in my
opinion it violates the principles Beautiful is better than ugly. and
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it..
(And perhaps several others.) To that end I've submitted
Ron Adam wrote:
I think what may be missing is a larger set of higher level string functions
that will work with lists of strings directly. Then lists of strings can be
thought of as a mutable string type by its use, and then working with
substrings
in lists and using ''.join() will not
Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron Adam wrote:
I think what may be missing is a larger set of higher level string
functions
that will work with lists of strings directly. Then lists of strings can
be
thought of as a mutable string type by its use, and then working with
On 10/6/06, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron Adam wrote:
I think what may be missing is a larger set of higher level string functions
that will work with lists of strings directly. Then lists of strings can be
thought of as a mutable string type by its use, and then working with
Josiah Carlson wrote:
Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron Adam wrote:
I think what may be missing is a larger set of higher level string
functions
that will work with lists of strings directly. Then lists of strings can
be
thought of as a mutable string type by its use, and
On 6 Oct 2006, at 12:37, Ron Adam wrote:
I've never liked the .join([]) idiom for string concatenation;
in my
opinion it violates the principles Beautiful is better than
ugly. and
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to
do it..
...
Well I always like things to
Nicko van Someren wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006, at 12:37, Ron Adam wrote:
I've never liked the .join([]) idiom for string concatenation; in my
opinion it violates the principles Beautiful is better than ugly. and
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do
it..
...
Well I
I've never liked the .join([]) idiom for string concatenation; in my
opinion it violates the principles Beautiful is better than ugly. and
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it..
(And perhaps several others.) To that end I've submitted patch #1569040
to
Gregory P. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never liked the .join([]) idiom for string concatenation; in my
opinion it violates the principles Beautiful is better than ugly. and
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it..
(And perhaps several others.)
On 5 Oct 2006, at 20:28, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
I've never liked the .join([]) idiom for string concatenation;
in my
opinion it violates the principles Beautiful is better than
ugly. and
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do
it..
(And perhaps several
Gregory P. Smith wrote:
have you run any generic benchmarks such as pystone to get a better
idea of what the net effect on typical python code is?
I hadn't, but I'm happy to. On my machine (a fire-breathing Athlon 64
x2 4400+), best of three runs:
Python 2.5 release:
Pystone(1.1) time
24 matches
Mail list logo
