John Machin wrote: > Chaos wrote: > > As my first attempt to loop through every pixel of an image, I used > > > > for thisY in range(0, thisHeight): > > for thisX in range(0, thisWidth): > > #Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY > > OT: you don't need the 0 in the range call. Taking it out doesn't make > it run faster, though. > > > > > But it takes 450-1000 milliseconds > > > > I want speeds less than 10 milliseconds > > > > I have tried using SWIG, and pypy but they all are unsuccessfull in > > compiling my files. > > Unsuccessful because .... what? > [I wasn't aware that swig was intended to compile Python scripts] > > Sticking with Python: > With the "for thisX" try > (1) using xrange instead of range. > (2) widthRange = range(thisWidth) > for thisY in range(thisHeight): > for thisX in widthrange: > and in general, hoist loop-invariants outside the loop. > > Have you considered Pyrex? > > It all depends on what "#Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY" is doing. > Perhaps there is a library (PIL, pygame, ...) that does what you are > trying to do. > Perhaps if you show us what you are doing, we can give you better > advice. > > HTH, > John
Nope still same speed. I also tried pyrex but I couldnt understand how to build pyx files. I didnt see how to set up the files using C. I wasnt sure if you were supposed use the example or build your own. With pypy I got a strange error trying to open py files. It said the first character of evey py file was unknown. I may try SWIG again becuase I fail to rememeber why I stopped using it. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
