On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 12:48:17PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:56:41 +0200 > schrieb Kornel Benko <kor...@lyx.org>: > > > Am Wed, 1 Jun 2022 08:01:19 -0400 > > schrieb Scott Kostyshak <skost...@lyx.org>: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 10:59:47AM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > > > Am Tue, 31 May 2022 12:20:55 +0200 > > > > schrieb Kornel Benko <kor...@lyx.org>: > > > > > > > > > At least here is what I can see: > > > > > > > > > > $ wc styFiles.lst > > > > > 11429 11429 812660 styFiles.lst > > > > > $ sort styFiles.lst | uniq| wc > > > > > 5943 5943 422983 > > > > > > > > > > Kornel > > > > > > > > Attached patch fixes it. OK to commit? > > > > > > I checked and I have duplicates also. Thanks for fixing this! > > > > > > The patch looks good to me, +1 to commit. Here are some comments that > > > after thinking more I'm guessing you should _not_ incorporate: > > > > > > I was wondering whether a set would be more appropriate than a > > > dictionary since the "1" seems irrelevant from what I can see. But after > > > some searching I did not find any performance advantage of using a set. > > > And dictionaries are more common, so I think your patch is good. > > > > > > One other minor comment is I wonder if preallocating the dictionary > > > could speed things up a bit? But then I realized that the script speed > > > is probably dominatinated by something else (I/O?), so probably better > > > to avoid complication for something that doesn't have a non-trivial > > > impact on speed. > > > > > > Scott > > > > Thanks Scott. I was hoping someone has a better idea. In fact, there is. > > Simply move > > visited = set() > > to outside of the 'for'-loop. > > The resulting output is the same as with my previous patch. > > > > Kornel > > > > Committed at a379c5d5
Nice and simple! I did not realize there was a set already there. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
