On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote:
> On 11 June 2015 at 17:16, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> > wrote: > > > This test conflates setup and execution. Better like my example, > ... > > Just had it pointed out to me that I've let my inner asshole out again > - sorry. I'm going to step away from the thread for a bit; my personal > state (daughter just had a routine but painful operation) shouldn't be > taken out on other folk, however indirectly. > Ha, no worries. You are completely correct about conflating setup and execution. As far as I can tell though, even if I isolate the dict setup from the benchmark, I get the same relative differences in results. iteritems() was introduced for a reason! If you don't need to go back to .items()'s copy behavior in py2, then six.iteritems() seems to be the best general purpose choice. I think Gordon said it best elsewhere in this thread: > again, i just want to reiterate, i'm not saying don't use items(), i just think we should not blindly use items() just as we shouldn't blindly use iteritems()/viewitems() > > -Rob > > -- > Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> > Distinguished Technologist > HP Converged Cloud > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev