RetroSearch Browse

Sat Aug 26 00:46:49 CEST 2006 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-August/068478.html

I prefer to focus on "clearer" and "less error-prone" rather than
"faster" in most cases.

I do agree it's a minor embarrassment that s.startswith(t) is slower
than s[:len(t)]==t; but I think we should make startswith() faster
rather than recommending the other idiom.

(Also, for longer substrings startswith wins -- but admittedly rather
long, like 300 chracters.)

--Guido

On 8/25/06, Fredrik Lundh <fredrik at pythonware.com> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > (*) I found an example of code testing "if string.find(s, t) != 0",
> > thinking it was a bug attempting to write "if t in s", but which Vinay
> > identified as a 1.5.2 idiom for "if not s.startswith(t)"...
>
> and as noted on the py3k list, not a very good one, given that the usual
> way to write that under 1.5.2 is a lot faster (*).
>
> </F>
>
> *) even faster than "startswith", in many cases.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
>

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-August/068478.html below:

[Python-Dev] Removing anachronisms from logging module