On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: >> On 4/7/2015 1:44 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: >> >>>>>> def to_base(number, base): >>> >>> ... digits = [] >>> ... while number > 0: >>> ... digits.append(number % base) >>> ... number //= base >>> ... return digits or [0] >>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> to_base(2932903594368438384328325832983294832483258958495845849584958458435439543858588435856958650865490, >>>>>> 429496729) >>> >>> [27626525, 286159541, 134919277, 305018215, 329341598, 48181777, >>> 79384857, 112868646, 221068759, 70871527, 416507001, 31] >>> About 15 microseconds. >> >> >> % and probably // call divmod internally and toss one of the results. >> Slightly faster (5.7 versus 6.1 microseconds on my machine) is > > Not on my box. > > $ python3 -m timeit -s "n = 1000000; x = 42" "n % x; n // x" > 10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.105 usec per loop > $ python3 -m timeit -s "n = 1000000; x = 42" "divmod(n,x)" > 10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.124 usec per loop
But curiously, if I time the whole function, then my results mirror yours; I wonder why that is. I don't see anything obvious in the disassembly that would explain it. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
