Alex Martelli wrote: > Next(s) would seem good... That does not work. It has to be next(iter(s)), and that has been tried and eliminated because it is significantly slower. >> Interesting. It depends a bit on the speed of tuple unpacking, but >> presumably that is quite fast. On my system it is pretty darn good: >> >> 0.101us "for x in s: break" >> 0.112us "x, = s"
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