MRAB writes:
> I'm wondering whether an alterative could be a function for splicing
> sequences such as lists and tuples which would avoid the need to create
> and then destroy intermediate sequences:
>
> splice(alist, i, 1 + 1, [value])
Does this make sense for lists? I don't see how you beat
newlist = alist[:]
newlist[index_or_slice] = value_or_sequence_respectively
(instead of newlist = alist[:i] + [value] + alist[i+1:], which
involves creating 4 lists instead of 1). I wonder if it might be
reasonable to peephole optimize
tmplist = list(atuple)
tmplist[index_or_slice] = value_or_sequence_respectively
newtuple = tuple(tmplist)
Obviously that wouldn't be part of the language, and it would be
a PITA for other implementations to mimic for infinitesimal benefit.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/VP7TP5ZEDBMS7LSLYBSQ3IVL2FDSKW2U/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
