> >
> >
>
> Did you look for bugs before trying to time it? For example, did you
> intend that it test the sizes from 10 thru 195 in steps of 5, or did you
> intend from 10 to 100, as you stated in your first post?
>
> Would you care to add a docstring to those functions to indicate what
> they're intended to do? i think maybe the anagramSolutionX functions
> are supposed to return True if the two strings contain the same letters
> (including the same number of duplicates) in an arbitrary order.
>
> Are you interested in faster algorithms for such a comparison? I think
> that function could be implemented in two lines of Python, using only
> builtin functions. And that includes the def line.
>
> Did you intend to put the timings for anagramSolution2 into solu1, and
> the timings for anagramSolution1 into solu2, and thus print them out in
> reverse order? it makes it hard to see what difference incremental
> changes might make.
>
>
>
> --
>
> DaveA
> its for a class...we were given the anagramSolutionX functions...we have to
> comapre those using time.time() and get accurate reading by running each
> function at least 10000 times to each word from 10 to 100 in steps of 5. i
> went up to 200 just to see if one would increase faster as the number
> increased but it didn't...also i realized i had the solutions labled wrong so
> i was starting to switch them and didnt finish :S sorry... before i started
> trying to time it, it ran creating words from 10-100 in steps of 5... make
> sense? the assignment we were given was to create a mkword(n) function and
> get it to generate the strings from 10-100 in steps of 5 and check to see
> which solution would be faster...
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
