Hendrik == Hendrik van Rooyen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hendrik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hendrik - as long as it works, and is fast enough, its not broken, so
Hendrik don't fix it...
That's the rub. It wasn't fast enough. I only realized that had
been a problem once I
Hendrik van Rooyen schreef:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hendrik - as long as it works, and is fast enough, its not broken, so
Hendrik don't fix it...
That's the rub. It wasn't fast enough. I only realized that had been a
problem once I fixed it though.
LOL - this is kind of weird
Roel Schroeven schreef:
Have you never experienced the following:
A customer reports a bug. Upon investaging you find the source of the
problem, but from studying the code you don't understand anymore how it
has ever been able to function correctly. From that moment, it indeed
stops
Roel Schroeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hendrik van Rooyen schreef:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hendrik - as long as it works, and is fast enough, its not broken, so
Hendrik don't fix it...
That's the rub. It wasn't fast enough. I only realized that had been a
problem once
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
Wouldn't be if k in d.keys() be the exact replacement?
Peter No, 'k in d' is equivalent to 'd.has_key(k)', only with less
Peter (constant) overhead for the function call. 'k in d.keys()' on the
Peter other hand
I will admit that way back when (maybe 8 yrs ago) I actually did this
in a piece of frequently executed code that's been stable for a
looong time. I have no idea why I might have written it that way.
Brain fart I suppose. I only noticed my mistake a couple months ago
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hendrik why? - the main point is actually that the code worked,
and was Hendrik stable - that should make you proud, not
embarrassed. that Hendrik there is far too much emphasis on
doing things the quickest way Hendrik - as long as it works, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hendrik - as long as it works, and is fast enough, its not broken, so
Hendrik don't fix it...
That's the rub. It wasn't fast enough. I only realized that had been a
problem once I fixed it though.
LOL - this is kind of weird - it was working, nobody
Paul Melis wrote:
I've always been using the has_key() method to test if a dictionary
contains a certain key. Recently I tried the same using 'in', e.g.
d = { ... }
if k in d:
...
and found that it seems to perform a lot better when lots of key-tests
are to be performed. I also
Paul Melis wrote:
I've always been using the has_key() method to test if a
dictionary contains a certain key. Recently I tried the same using
'in', e.g.
d = { ... }
if k in d:
...
Wouldn't be if k in d.keys() be the exact replacement?
Regards,
Björn
--
BOFH excuse #17:
fat
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
Wouldn't be if k in d.keys() be the exact replacement?
no. that would convert an O(1) operation to an O(n) operation, which
would be rather silly.
/F
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
Paul Melis wrote:
I've always been using the has_key() method to test if a
dictionary contains a certain key. Recently I tried the same using
'in', e.g.
d = { ... }
if k in d:
...
Wouldn't be if k in d.keys() be the exact replacement?
No, 'k in d' is
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
[...]
this is why e.g.
string[:len(prefix)] == prefix
is often a lot faster than
string.startswith(prefix)
This is interesting. In which cases does the former form perform better?
[I won't stop using str.startswith anyway :) ]
Regards.
--
Roberto Bonvallet
Paul Melis wrote:
I've always been using the has_key() method to test if a dictionary
contains a certain key. Recently I tried the same using 'in', e.g.
I've found using the set type to be the quickest way to do many of
these tasks. That leads me to another problem: how to cast / convert
sets
Andy Dingley wrote:
I need to generate a set (lots of intersections involved), but then I
need to display it sorted
lstBugsChanged = [ bugId for bugId in setBugsChanged ]
lstBugsChanged.sort()
lstBugsChanged = sorted(setBugsChanged)
/F
--
Andy Dingley wrote:
I need to generate a set (lots of intersections involved), but then I
need to display it sorted
lstBugsChanged = [ bugId for bugId in setBugsChanged ]
lstBugsChanged.sort()
In Python 2.4:
sorted(setBugsChanged)
--
Roberto Bonvallet
--
I wrote:
In Python 2.4:
lastline.replace(, =)
--
Roberto Bonvallet
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Peter Otten wrote:
No, 'k in d' is equivalent to 'd.has_key(k)', only with less
(constant) overhead for the function call.
Ah, thx. Thought the x in d syntax might search in d.values() too.
Regards,
Björn
--
BOFH excuse #12:
dry joints on cable plug
--
Roberto Bonvallet wrote:
this is why e.g.
string[:len(prefix)] == prefix
is often a lot faster than
string.startswith(prefix)
This is interesting. In which cases does the former form perform better?
no time to doublecheck right now, but iirc, last time we benchmarked
this,
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
Peter Otten wrote:
No, 'k in d' is equivalent to 'd.has_key(k)', only with less
(constant) overhead for the function call.
Ah, thx. Thought the x in d syntax might search in d.values() too.
I don't think it does
Python 2.4.3 (#1, Nov 19 2006, 13:16:36)
[GCC
Roberto Bonvallet wrote:
lstBugsChanged = [ bugId for bugId in setBugsChanged ]
In Python 2.4:
Hmmm. Thanks. Another reason to twist the admin's arm and get them to
upgrade the last 2.3.4 boxen
sorted(setBugsChanged)
Out of interest, whats the Pythonic way to simply cast
Andy Dingley wrote:
Out of interest, whats the Pythonic way to simply cast (sic) the set to
a list, assuming I don't need it sorted? The list comprehension?
mySet = set(myList)
myList = list(mySet)
--
Roberto Bonvallet
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Andy Dingley wrote:
sorted(setBugsChanged)
Out of interest, whats the Pythonic way to simply cast (sic) the set to
a list, assuming I don't need it sorted? The list comprehension?
list(setBugsChanged)
Peter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Peter Otten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andy Dingley wrote:
sorted(setBugsChanged)
Out of interest, whats the Pythonic way to simply cast (sic) the set to
a list, assuming I don't need it sorted? The list comprehension?
list(setBugsChanged)
Peter
Note
Paul Melis wrote:
I don't think it does
Thanks for trying, I was too lazy ;)
Regards,
Björn
--
BOFH excuse #52:
Smell from unhygienic janitorial staff wrecked the tape heads
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Paul Melis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, thx. Thought the x in d syntax might search in d.values() too.
I don't think it does
Python 2.4.3 (#1, Nov 19 2006, 13:16:36)
[GCC 3.4.5 (Gentoo 3.4.5-r1, ssp-3.4.5-1.0, pie-8.7.9)] on linux2
Type help, copyright, credits or license for more
Peter Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
Wouldn't be if k in d.keys() be the exact replacement?
Peter No, 'k in d' is equivalent to 'd.has_key(k)', only with less
Peter (constant) overhead for the function call. 'k in d.keys()' on the
Peter other hand creates a list of keys which is
27 matches
Mail list logo
