On Tuesday 14 October 2003 04:50 pm, Guido van Rossum wrote: ... > > case seems important enough to me that I'd accept any arbitrary > > non-comparing behavior (e.g. making the id of the thing being sorted > > the secondary key!-) rather than default to whole-record compares. > > Given that internally we still do a DSU, sorting tuples of (key, > something), using the id of the record for 'something' is just as > inefficient as using the original index -- in both cases we'd have to > allocate len(lst) ints. Yes, of course, I was just being facetious -- sorry for not making that clearer. > Greg Ewing suggested that the ints shouldn't have to be Python ints. > While this is true, it would require a much larger overhaul of the > existing sort code, which assumes the "records" to be sorted are > pointers to objects. Again, true. But maybe the performance increase would be worth the substantial effort (I don't understand the current sort code enough to say more than "maybe"!-). Alex
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