flatten a level one list

[bonono at gmail.com]

Peter Otten wrote:
> bonono at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > David Murmann wrote:
>
> >> > # New attempts:
> >> > from itertools import imap
> >> > def flatten4(x, y):
> >> >     '''D Murman'''
> >> >     l = []
> >> >     list(imap(l.extend, izip(x, y)))
> >> >     return l
>
> >> well, i would really like to take credit for these, but they're
> >> not mine ;) (credit goes to Michael Spencer). i especially like
> >> flatten4, even if its not as fast as the phenomenally faster
> >> flatten7.
> >>
> > Me too. And expand a bit on flatten4, I got this interesting result.
> >
> > bonono at moresing:~/bonobo/psp$ python ~/lib/python2.4/timeit.py -s
> > "import itertools; a=zip(xrange(1000),xrange(1000))" "l=len(a);
> > li=[None]*l*2;li[::2]=range(1000); li[1::2]=range(1000)"
> > 1000 loops, best of 3: 318 usec per loop
> >
> > bonono at moresing:~/bonobo/psp$ python ~/lib/python2.4/timeit.py -s
> > "import itertools,psyco; a=zip(xrange(1000),xrange(1000));li=[]"
> > "filter(li.extend,a)"
> > 1000 loops, best of 3: 474 usec per loop
>
> For a fair comparison you'd have to time the zip operation.
>
> > Still 50% slower but it has the advantage that it works on all kinds of
> > sequence as they can be efficiently izip() together.
>
> Creating a list via list/map/filter just for the side effect is not only bad
> taste,
>
> ~ $ python -m timeit -s'a = zip([range(1000)]*2)' 'lst=[];ext=lst.extend'
> 'for i in a: ext(i)'
> 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.23 usec per loop
> ~ $ python -m timeit -s'a = zip([range(1000)]*2)' 'lst=[];filter(lst.extend,
> a)'
> 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.63 usec per loop
>
> it is also slower than an explicit loop. Don't do it.
ah, stand corrected.