On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:17 PM, James Y Knight <foom@fuhm.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 2009, at 6:04 PM, geremy condra wrote:
Perhaps my test is flawed in some way?
Yes: you're testing the speed of something that makes absolutely no sense to do in a tight loop, so *who the heck cares how fast any way of doing it is*!
Is this thread over yet?
James
I'm testing the speed because the claim was made that the pop/add approach was inefficient. Here's the full quote:
The obvious way, for newcomers, of achieving the effect is:
x = s.pop() s.add(x)
... and that's simply horrible in terms of efficiency. So the "obvious" way of doing it in Python is wrong(TM), and the "correct" way of doing it is obscure and raises misleading exceptions.
Since I use this in a graph theory library that I am currently trying to scale to handle 300 million node simulations, and this is used in several relevant algorithms, I was concerned. Geremy Condra