RetroSearch Browse

Fri Oct 23 21:04:12 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-October/093247.html

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> So 'for x in s: break' is about 2x faster than next(iter(s)) and 3x
> faster than (iter(s).next()).
> I was pretty surprised that it was 30% faster than "for x in s: pass". I
> assume it has something to do with a potential "else:" statement?

for x in s: pass

iterates through *all* the elements in s and leaves x bound to the 
arbritrary *last* one instead of the arbitrary *first* one. For a large 
set, this would be a lot slower, not just a little.

fwiw, I think the use case for this is sufficiently rare that it does 
not need a separate method just for this purpose.

tjr

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-October/093247.html below:

[Python-Dev] Retrieve an arbitrary element from a set without removing it