On Sep 3, 12:35 am, Chris Torek <nos...@torek.net> wrote: > In article <18fe4afd-569b-4580-a629-50f6c7482...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> > Travis Parks <jehugalea...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >[Someone] commented that the itertools algorithms will perform > >faster than the hand-written ones. Are these algorithms optimized > >internally? > > They are written in C, so avoid a lot of CPython interpreter > overhead. Mileage in Jython, etc., may vary... > -- > In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems > Intel require I note that my opinions are not those of WRS or Intel > Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603 > email: gmail (figure it out) http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
I thought I would point out that many of the itertools functions change between 2.x and 3.x versions. Since 2.7 is supposed to be the last 2.x language, I suppose I will wait until 3.2 becomes the norm before I incorporate some of these changes. In the mean time, I will starting working on algorithms that work against Sequences. I think a really important lesson is that Python really doesn't need an algorithms library, like many others do. A lot of the common algorithms are supported by the syntax itself. All my library did was allow for easier function composition. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
