Next(s) would seem good... Alex Sent from my iPhone On Oct 24, 2009, at 6:47 PM, John Arbash Meinel <john.meinel at canonical.com > wrote: > Adam Olsen wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:04, Vitor Bosshard <algorias at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> I see this as being useful for frozensets as well, where you can't >>> get >>> an arbitrary element easily due to the obvious lack of .pop(). I ran >>> into this recently, when I had a frozenset that I knew had 1 element >>> (it was the difference between 2 other sets), but couldn't get to >>> that >>> element easily (get the pun?) >> >> item, = set_of_one >> >> > > Interesting. It depends a bit on the speed of tuple unpacking, but > presumably that is quite fast. On my system it is pretty darn good: > > 0.101us "for x in s: break" > 0.112us "x, = s" > 0.122us "for x in s: pass" > > So not quite as good as the for loop, but quite close. > > John > =:-> > _______________________________________________ > 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/aleaxit%40gmail.com
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