Hi Ben,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 06:50:28PM -0500, Ben Cartwright wrote:
> > It seems to me that str.count is awfully slow. Is there some reason
> > for this?
stringobject.c could do with a good clean-up. It contains very similar
algorithms multiple times, in slightly different styles and with
d
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Recent versions of GCC appear
> to be implementing C98 by default -- at least I didn't get complaints
> about declarations placed after non-declarations in the same block
> from any of the buildbot hosts...
As long as it doesn't complain when I *do* put all
my declaratio
> As for the question of whether to switch to C++ in 3.0, I'd say
> probably not, as it's much harder to interface with C++ from other
> languages than to C.
An excellent point, and to my mind conclusive.
Bill
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 2/28/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>>
My personal goal in life right now is to stay as
far away from C++ as I can get.
>>>
>>> so what C compiler are you using ?
>>
>> Gcc, mostly. I don't mind
On 2/28/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>
> > > My personal goal in life right now is to stay as
> > > far away from C++ as I can get.
> >
> > so what C compiler are you using ?
>
> Gcc, mostly. I don't mind if it's capable of
> compiling C++, as long as I can choos
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> > My personal goal in life right now is to stay as
> > far away from C++ as I can get.
>
> so what C compiler are you using ?
Gcc, mostly. I don't mind if it's capable of
compiling C++, as long as I can choose not to
write any.
--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>
> > moving to (basic) C++ might also be a good idea (in 3.0, perhaps). is any-
> > one still stuck with pure C89 these days ?
>
> Some of us actually *prefer* working with plain C
> when we have a choice, and don't consider ourselves
> "stuck" with it.
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> moving to (basic) C++ might also be a good idea (in 3.0, perhaps). is any-
> one still stuck with pure C89 these days ?
Some of us actually *prefer* working with plain C
when we have a choice, and don't consider ourselves
"stuck" with it.
My personal goal in life right no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > it's about time that someone sat down and merged the string and unicode
> > implementations into a single "stringlib" code base (see the SRE sources for
> > an efficient way to do this in plain C). [1]
> [...]
> > 1) anyone want me to start working on this ?
>
> This w
Zitat von Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> it's about time that someone sat down and merged the string and unicode
> implementations into a single "stringlib" code base (see the SRE sources for
> an efficient way to do this in plain C). [1]
[...]
> 1) anyone want me to start working on this ?
(manually cross-posting from comp.lang.python)
Ben Cartwright wrote:
> Your evidence points to some unoptimized code in the underlying C
> implementation of Python. As such, this should probably go to the
> python-dev list (http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev).
> This tactic typi
>From comp.lang.python:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It seems to me that str.count is awfully slow. Is there some reason
> for this?
> Evidence:
>
> str.count time test
> import string
> import time
> import array
>
> s = string.printable * int(1e5) # 10**7 character string
> a = a
12 matches
Mail list logo
