George Sakkis wrote: > I'm afraid that the taken approach is worse than your patch. For one > thing, it allows only zero-arg functions. Of course one can work > around it by passing "lambda: f(...)" but that's adding extra overhead > which can be measurable for small fast functions. Even if passing > *args and **kwds to a Timer is allowed, that's still going to be > slower (because of tuple unpacking and whatnot) as Steven's attempt > above showed. > > I think it's at least worth bringing this to the attention of the > developers.
I decided to give it a try: http://bugs.python.org/issue2527 Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
