On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 06:48:21 +1100, Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 03/22/2010 07:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Perhaps you should have said that it was a wrapper around deque giving
>> richer functionality, rather than giving the impression that it was a
>> brand new data structure invented by you. Peopl
On 03/22/2010 07:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Perhaps you should have said that it was a wrapper around deque giving
> richer functionality, rather than giving the impression that it was a
> brand new data structure invented by you. People are naturally going to
> be more skeptical about a ne
My apologies; I left out the heading on the last of the four
structures in the benchmark results. Here are those results again with
the missing heading (Stringy) inserted:
Regards,
Zooko
- Hide quoted text -
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
>
> impl: StringChain
> t
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>
> Perhaps you should have said that it was a wrapper around deque giving
> richer functionality, rather than giving the impression that it was a
> brand new data structure invented by you. People are naturally going to
> be more skeptical a
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:09:46 -0600, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> But the use case that I am talking about is where you need to accumulate
> new incoming strings into your buffer while alternately processing
> leading prefixes of the buffer.
[...]
> Below are the abbreviated results of the benchmar
Folks:
I failed to make something sufficiently clear in my original message
about StringChain. The use case that I am talking about is not simply
that you need to accumulate a sequence of incoming chunks of data,
concatenate them together, and then process the entire result. If that
is all you nee
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:40:23 +, MRAB wrote:
>> To be taken seriously, I think you need to compare stringchain to the
>> list idiom. If your benchmarks favourably compare to that, then it
>> might be worthwhile.
>>
> IIRC, someone did some work on making concatenation faster by delaying
> it u
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:11:37 -0700, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
Folks:
Every couple of years I run into a problem where some Python code that
worked well at small scales starts burning up my CPU at larger scales,
and the underlying issue turns out to be the idiom of accum
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:11:37 -0700, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> Folks:
>
> Every couple of years I run into a problem where some Python code that
> worked well at small scales starts burning up my CPU at larger scales,
> and the underlying issue turns out to be the idiom of accumulating data
> b
"Zooko O'Whielacronx" writes:
> Every couple of years I run into a problem where some Python code that
> worked well at small scales starts burning up my CPU at larger scales,
> and the underlying issue turns out to be the idiom of accumulating
> data by string concatenation.
I usually use Strin
Folks:
Every couple of years I run into a problem where some Python code that
worked well at small scales starts burning up my CPU at larger scales,
and the underlying issue turns out to be the idiom of accumulating
data by string concatenation. It just happened again
(http://foolscap.lothar.com/t
11 matches
Mail list logo
