24 Oct 2009 24 Oct '09
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:53:24 am Willi Richert wrote:
surprised about the performance of for/break provided by Vitor, I did some more testing. It revealed that indeed we can forget the get() (which was implemented as a stripped down pop()):
I don't understand that conclusion. According to your tests, your implementation of get() is as fast as "for x in set: break", and it's certainly much, much more readable and straightforward.
-- Steven D'Aprano