On 2007-10-31, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 31, 8:44 am, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2007-10-30, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Oct 30, 11:25 am, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 2007-10-30, Eduardo O. Padoan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> > This is a FAQ: >> >> >http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-does-python-use-methods-for-some-function... >> >> >> Holy Airy Persiflage Batman! >> >> >> Python 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Apr 18 2007, 08:51:08) [MSC v.1310 32 bit >> >> (Intel)] on >> >> win32 >> >> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.>>> >> >> import timeit >> >> >>> timeit.Timer('len(seq)', 'seq = range(100)').timeit() >> >> 0.20332271187463391 >> >> >>> timeit.Timer('seq.__len__()', 'seq = range(100)').timeit() >> >> >> 0.48545737364457864 >> >> > Common mistake; try this instead: >> >> > timeit.Timer('seqlen()', >> > 'seq = range(100); seqlen=seq.__len__').timeit() >> >> Why would I want to do that? > > To realize that __len__ is actually faster than len in this > case; your second timing is dominated by the time to do > attribute lookup.
I knew that going in. Making len a builtin saves us from writing our own seqlen functions. ;) -- Neil Cerutti He's a guy who gets up at six o'clock in the morning regardless of what time it is. --Lou Duva -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
