tjreedy at udel.edu
Mon Jun 30 22:21:35 CEST 2008
Maric Michaud wrote:
> Le Monday 30 June 2008 15:52:56 Gerhard Häring, vous avez écrit :
>> Larry Bates wrote:
>> If, on the other hand, we knew beforehand how big the list will get
>> approximately, we could avoid all these reallocations. No problem with
>> Python's C API:
>> PyAPI_FUNC(PyObject *) PyList_New(Py_ssize_t size);
>> But you can't do it directly from Python, unless you (ab)use ctypes.
>> -- Gerhard
> Well, as I posted few days ago, one could envisage, as a pure python
> optimization for dealing with long list, to replace an algorithm with a lot
> of append by something like this :
> mark = object()
> datas = [ mark ] * expected_size
datas = [None] * expected_size
has been a standard idiom since before object() existed ;-)
and works fine *unless* one wants to add None explicitly
and have that be different from 'unused'.
> # working with the datas while maintaining the effective currrently used size
> Of course one could even subclass list and redefine __len__, append, and some
> other methods to deal with this "allocated by block" list.
An interesting idea if one does this at least a few times and wants to
use .append and .extend instead of explicit indexing.
One could also make such a subclass a 'no-grow' list if appropriate
(when an attempt to grow it would indicate a bug).
More information about the Python-list