On 25/03/2018 02:47, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:05:56 +0100, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
[...]
yes, good idea
Not if you want to avoid that string to int conversion (as you stated).
That is still there, but in addition you now split the string into a
list and then join the list into a different string.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who spotted that.
There's something very curious about somebody worried about efficiency
choosing a *less* efficient solution than what they started with. To
quote W.A. Wulf:
"More computing sins are committed in the name of efficiency (without
necessarily achieving it) than for any other single reason — including
blind stupidity."
As Donald Knuth observed:
"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time:
premature optimization is the root of all evil."
The Original Poster (OP) is concerned about saving, what, a tenth of a
microsecond in total? Hardly seems worth the effort, especially if you're
going to end up with something even slower.
Using CPython on my machine, doing a string to int conversion that
specific number took 200 times as long as doing a normal assignment.
That conversion took 4 microseconds.
Not significant if it's only done once. But it might be executed a
million times.
--
bartc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
