Ned Batchelder wrote:
On 12/16/13 10:49 AM, rusi wrote:
And things that have consistency are of course...
consistant
(not consistent)
In English, it's spelled consistent:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consistant
So to be consistent we should spell it performent? :-)
--
Greg
--
https://m
On 12/16/13 10:49 AM, rusi wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2013 9:11:15 AM UTC+5:30, Tim Roberts wrote:
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
Well "performant" is performant enough for the purposes of communicating
on the python list I think :D
Most probably could figure it out as being stylisticall
On Sunday, December 15, 2013 9:11:15 AM UTC+5:30, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> >>Well "performant" is performant enough for the purposes of communicating
> >>on the python list I think :D
> > Most probably could figure it out as being stylistically similar to
> >conformant =>
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Well "performant" is performant enough for the purposes of communicating
>>>on the python list I think :D
>>
>> Most probably could figure it out as being stylistically similar to
>>"conformant", which
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
>>
>>Well "performant" is performant enough for the purposes of communicating
>>on the python list I think :D
>
> Most probably could figure it out as being stylistically similar to
>"conformant", which I believe IS used in English
>
>conformant => something that
On Friday, December 13, 2013 11:58:51 AM UTC+5:30, Robert Voigtländer wrote:
> >I've heard the term used often. It means something like, "performs
> >well" or "runs fast". It may or may not be an English word, but that
> >doesn't stop people from using it :-)
> > If "google" can be used to me
>I've heard the term used often. It means something like, "performs
>well" or "runs fast". It may or may not be an English word, but that
>doesn't stop people from using it :-)
> If "google" can be used to mean "make huge amouts of money with a
> product that is inherently flawed" then I'll
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:54:10 +0100, Peter Otten wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> In any case, sorting in Python is amazingly fast. You may be pleasantly
>> surprised that a version that sorts your data, while nominally O(N log
>> N), may be much faster than an O(N) solution that doesn't requi
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:25:53 -0800, Robert Voigtländer wrote:
> I have a list like this:
>
> a = [(52, 193), .. (36, 133)]
# iterate over the list of tuples
# creates a dictionary n0:[n1a, n1b, n1c ... ]
# from tuples (n0,n1a), (n0,n1b), (n0,n1c) ...
b = {}
for x in a:
if x[0] in b:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:36:51 +, MRAB wrote:
> On 12/12/2013 11:44, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:25:53 -0800, Robert Voigtländer wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a list like this:
>>>
>>> a = [(52, 193), (52, 193), (52, 192), ...
>>>
>>>
>>> I need to find a -performant- way
On 12/12/2013 15:02, Roy Smith wrote:
In article <52a9a1a0$0$29992$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "performant".
I've heard the term used often. It means something like, "performs
well" or "runs fast". It may or may not
In article <52a9a1a0$0$29992$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "performant".
I've heard the term used often. It means something like, "performs
well" or "runs fast". It may or may not be an English word, but that
doesn't s
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> In any case, sorting in Python is amazingly fast. You may be pleasantly
> surprised that a version that sorts your data, while nominally
> O(N log N), may be much faster than an O(N) solution that doesn't require
> sorted data. If I were a betting man, I'd be willing to wa
On 12/12/2013 11:44, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:25:53 -0800, Robert Voigtländer wrote:
Hi,
I have a list like this:
a = [(52, 193), (52, 193), (52, 192), ...
I need to find a -performant- way to transform this into a list with
tuples (a[0],[a[0][1]min],[a[0][1]max]).
I'
On 2013-12-12 11:44, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> In any case, sorting in Python is amazingly fast. You may be
> pleasantly surprised that a version that sorts your data, while
> nominally O(N log N), may be much faster than an O(N) solution that
> doesn't require sorted data. If I were a betting man,
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:25:53 -0800, Robert Voigtländer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a list like this:
>
> a = [(52, 193), (52, 193), (52, 192), ...
>
>
> I need to find a -performant- way to transform this into a list with
> tuples (a[0],[a[0][1]min],[a[0][1]max]).
I'm afraid I don't know what you
Peter Otten wrote:
> Robert Voigtländer wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a list like this:
>>
>> a = [(52, 193), (52, 193), (52, 192), (51, 193), (51, 191), (51, 190),
>> (51, 189), (51, 188), (50, 194), (50, 187), (50, 186), (50, 185), (50,
>> 184), (49, 194), (49, 183), (49, 182), (49, 181), (48,
Robert Voigtländer writes:
> Hi,
>
> I have a list like this:
# shortened:
a = [(52, 193), (52, 193), (52, 192),
(51, 193), (51, 191), (51, 190), (51, 189), (51, 188),
(50, 194)]
> I need to find a -performant- way to transform this into a list with
> tuples (a[0],[a[0][1]min],[a[0][1
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Robert Voigtländer
wrote:
> Wow, thanks for the educating answer. I'll work through all the varaints.
> And yes, I meant keep it unsorted.
>
> As I read it, sorting may be required then if I don't want to use the slowest
> variant. I'll test them all.
Sorting wou
Wow, thanks for the educating answer. I'll work through all the varaints.
And yes, I meant keep it unsorted.
As I read it, sorting may be required then if I don't want to use the slowest
variant. I'll test them all.
Thanks
Robert
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Robert Voigtländer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a list like this:
>
> a = [(52, 193), (52, 193), (52, 192), (51, 193), (51, 191), (51, 190),
> (51, 189), (51, 188), (50, 194), (50, 187), (50, 186), (50, 185), (50,
> 184), (49, 194), (49, 183), (49, 182), (49, 181), (48, 194), (48, 180),
> (48, 179),
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Robert Voigtländer
wrote:
> I need to find a -performant- way to transform this into a list with tuples
> (a[0],[a[0][1]min],[a[0][1]max]).
>
> Hard to explaint what I mean .. [0] of the first three tuples is 52. [1] is
> 193,193 and 192.
> What I need as result
Hi,
I have a list like this:
a = [(52, 193), (52, 193), (52, 192), (51, 193), (51, 191), (51, 190), (51,
189), (51, 188), (50, 194), (50, 187), (50, 186), (50, 185), (50, 184), (49,
194), (49, 183), (49, 182), (49, 181), (48, 194), (48, 180), (48, 179), (48,
178), (48, 177), (47, 194), (47, 17
23 matches
Mail list logo
