Tim Peters wrote: > > But if you add seq.items(), you had better add seq.keys() too, and > seq.values() as a synonym for seq[:]. I guess the perceived advantage of > adding seq.items() is that it supplies yet another incredibly slow and > convoluted way to get at the for-loop index? "Ah, that's the ticket! Let's > allocate gazillabytes of storage and compute all the indexes into a massive > data structure up front, and then we can use the loop index that's already > sitting there for free anyway to index into that and get back a redundant > copy of itself!" <wink>. That's a -1, right? <0.1 wink> Peter -- Peter Schneider-Kamp ++47-7388-7331 Herman Krags veg 51-11 mailto:peter@schneider-kamp.de N-7050 Trondheim http://schneider-kamp.de
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4