int() 24 times slower then long() in Python 2.3
james at logicalprogression.net
Wed Jul 14 14:13:55 CEST 2004
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 12:28 pm, paolo veronelli wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:08:16 +0100, James Henderson wrote:
> > I think you should look at PEP 237 "Unifying Long Integers and Integers"
> > - it
> > may even reassure you. As Peter Hansen has already hinted in reply to
> > another of your messages, Python is in the process of unifying longs and
> > ints.
> > It used to be that calling int() on a big number gave an exception -
> > perhaps a
> > more Pythonic version of your requested giving the wrong result - and now
> > that it doesn't I suppose there is a sense in which the current
> > distinction
> > between ints and longs is "unmeaningful" from the user's point of view
> > (it's
> > not meaningless under the hood of course). According to the PEP the
> > decision
> > to keep two types was that it:
> > is far easier to implement, is backwards
> > compatible at the C API level, and in addition can be implemented
> > partially as a transitional measure.
> > Perhaps you thing that ints and longs should not be unified but I won't
> > start
> > arguing till you come out and say it. :)
> > James
> I don't want to change any way the base of PEP 237,but this kind of
> flaw is a problem and it's possible to be the first of a long list.
> It's good to know, always ,why we pay a price.Better an Error then a ghost
> is itself the cause of the flaw.
> Python is fast ,this is why I use it.Anyone has a different goal in using
> Regards Paolino
I actually agree it's a shame that even ignored warnings have such a
performance impact but at least these warnings are scheduled to be removed
sometime in Python 2.4 (they're still there in 2.4a1 though). Apparently
they were added for "those concerned about extreme backwards compatibility".
James Henderson, Logical Progression Ltd
More information about the Python-list