le[[*Tuple[int, Ts]]], *args: *Ts):
f(*enumerate(args))
```
In particular I'm talking about the `*Tuple[int, Ts]` syntax. All the examples
from the PEP use `*Ts` so I don't know if this is legal, but I hope so.
This should probably be clarified in the PEP.
--
Best regard
Hi,
recently I wrote an algorithm, in which very often I had to get an arbitrary
element from a set without removing it.
Three possibilities came to mind:
1.
x = some_set.pop()
some_set.add(x)
2.
for x in some_set:
break
3.
x = iter(some_set).next()
Of course, the third should be
Hi,
here is the first shot to provide a faster means of retrieving an arbitrary
element from a set without removing it.
The times for
=
from timeit import *
stat1 = "for i in xrange(100): iter(s).next()"
stat2 = "for i in xrange(100): s.get()"
for stat in [stat1, stat
nts, especially to Stefan for the
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.ideas/5606 link.
Regards,
wr
Am Freitag, 23. Oktober 2009 19:25:48 schrieb John Arbash Meinel:
> Vitor Bosshard wrote:
> > 2009/10/23 Willi Richert :
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> recently I w
ag, 24. Oktober 2009 00:49:38 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:53:24 am Willi Richert wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > surprised about the performance of for/break provided by Vitor, I did
> > some more testing. It revealed that indeed we can forget the get()
&g
or for i in xrange(1000): s.get() : 0.148580
Time for g=s.get;
for i in xrange(1000): g() :0.080563
So, now set.get() is indeed the fastest and preferable solution if you need
massive amounts of retrieving elements from a set without removing them.
wr
Am Freitag, 23. O
Hi,
I totally agree regarding the efficiency. Code that relies on a fast "non-
removing .pop()" probably has other worse bottlenecks that should be targetted
first.
This would, however, relief every programmer who needs this the first time in
his Python experience, to research how this could be
For those of you who want to tinker with it, I posted the patch against the
current trunk at http://bugs.python.org/issue7212
Have fun,
wr
Am Montag, 26. Oktober 2009 21:32:32 schrieb Guido van Rossum:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
ove(el)
> y = set.get()
>
> there are no guarantees about x and y being different.
>
> I believe that the patch supplied by Willi Richart implemented these
> behaviours.
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue7212
>
Actually, no. The patch makes no assumption a
Am Sonntag, 1. November 2009 12:21:15 schrieben Sie:
> It seems that even those originally asking for set retrieval have gone
> silent
Nope. Stilll following and waiting for the verdict of the community after
having filed the corpus delicti [1]
wr
[1]: http://bugs.python.org/issue7212
__
Hi,
all your points are valid -- for the experienced Python programmer who has
stumbled across this issue already and solved it in one of several ways. All
your points, however, do not support the "one obvious way to do it" philosophy
of Python. It's all about making Python even more clean and
11 matches
Mail list logo
