clp2 at rebertia.com
Fri Jul 3 10:12:20 CEST 2009
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Brad<schickb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 9:40 pm, "Pablo Torres N." <tn.pa... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If it is speed that we are after, it's my understanding that map and
>> filter are faster than iterating with the for statement (and also
>> faster than list comprehensions). So here is a rewrite:
>> def split(seq, func=bool):
>> t = filter(func, seq)
>> f = filter(lambda x: not func(x), seq)
>> return list(t), list(f)
> In my simple tests, that takes 1.8x as long as the original solution.
> Better than the itertools solution, when "func" is short and fast. I
> think the solution here would worse if func was more complex.
> Either way, what I am still wondering is if people would find a built-
> in implementation useful?
FWIW, Ruby has Enumerable#partition, which does the same thing as
split() and has a better name IMHO.
More information about the Python-list