RetroSearch Browse

Mon Oct 27 13:00:09 EST 2003 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/039638.html

> As a proof-of-concept, here is GvR's code re-cast with the queue changed
> to a double stack implementation.  The interface is completely
> unchanged.  The memory consumed is double that the current tee() but
> much less than the linked list version.  The speed is half that of the
> current tee() and roughly comparable to or slightly better than the
> linked list version.

Actually, if I up the range() in the gen() function to range(10000)
and drop the print statement, the Python version of your code runs
about 20% slower than mine.  But this says nothing about the relative
speed of C implementations.

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

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/039638.html below:

[Python-Dev] RE: cloning iterators again