On Sat, Jul 20, 2002, Tim Peters wrote: > > If it weren't for the ~sort column, I'd seriously suggest replacing the > samplesort with this. 2*N extra bytes isn't as bad as it might sound, given > that, in the absence of massive object duplication, each list element > consumes at least 12 bytes (type pointer, refcount and value) + 4 bytes for > the list pointer. Add 'em all up and that's a 13% worst-case temp memory > overhead. Any reason the list object can't grow a .stablesort() method? -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Project Vote Smart: http://www.vote-smart.org/
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