I have no idea. That's a lower level of programming than I'm used to dealing with.
Josh (I also only tried the one value. Had I tried with other strings that would fail the test, some functions may have performed better.) On Aug 29, 2:19 am, Matteo Landi <landima...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I tried the also the solution posted above (recursive w/o > slicing and iterative), and I discovered they were the slowest.. > > is_palindrome_recursive 2.68151649808 > is_palindrome_slice 0.44510699381 > is_palindrome_list 1.93861944217 > is_palindrome_reversed 3.28969831976 > is_palindrome_recursive_no_slicing 6.78929775328 > is_palindrome_iterative 4.88826141315 > > Nothing to say about the iterative function, but the benchmark of the > recursive was unexpected, at least for my point of view: do you think > it is due to the try/except overhead? > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
