Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> writes:
> Do you have any idea why your sum function is, uhm, three times
> faster than the reduce(operator.add) version? Is the implementation
> of reduce doing something silly, or are there shortcuts you can take
> that reduce() can't?
I imagine it's the function calls; a trip through the call machinery,
time packing and unpacking arguments, etc. I haven't checked, though.
> I'm asking because I think I would prefer reduce to give the speed
> you want. That way, we won't have people come asking for a prod()
> function to match sum(), etc.
I can't think of one.
I'm not sure this is worth the effort, though.
Cheers,
M.
--
Any form of evilness that can be detected without *too* much effort
is worth it... I have no idea what kind of evil we're looking for
here or how to detect is, so I can't answer yes or no.
-- Guido Van Rossum, python-dev
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