In article <8e4d3fe2-c4bd-4a73-9c50-7a336dab2...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Steve Howell <showel...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jan 22, 11:10=A0pm, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: >> >>>I know Python's number one concern will never be speed, but if Python >>>makes an O(1) operation into an unnecessarily O(N) operation for no >>>good reasons other than "it's too complicated, " or it "adds another >>>pointer to the structure," or "it adds another conditional check to >>>list_ass_slice for operations that aren't popping off the top," I >>>think it's reasonable to challenge the design philosophy. >> >> "Rough consensus and running code." >> >> You have a good point, but nobody will ever give your idea serious >> attention until there's a patch and benchmarks. > >Here is a benchmark of O(N*N) vs. O(N) for two C programs. One does >memmove; the other simply advances the pointer.
You should provide pybench numbers and probably also use the benchmarks produced by the Unladen Swallow project. The next step is to file a patch on bugs.python.org and request review. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ import antigravity -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
