It seems like such a small performance difference shouldnt affect the decision if a custom copy method is good or not?
/Victor On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Jason Marshall <jasonmarshall...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the C code, rect.copy and surface.copy are equivalent to > rect.__copy__ and surface.__copy__. You may use copy.copy(rect) and > copy.copy(surface) in your code, but copy.copy will simply call > rect.__copy__ or surface.__copy__. By using rect.copy and surface.copy > rather than the standard library's copy.copy, your code will run > ≈0.0001% faster. > > For aesthetic reasons, you would use rect.copy and surface.copy rather > than rect.__copy__ and surface.__copy__ in your code. > > Jason > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Victor Blomqvist <v...@viblo.se> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Something I have been thinking about: > > Rect and Surface classes have their own copy methods. Why do they have > that > > when there is a module called copy in the standard lib that can handle > copy > > (with help)? The rect copy method was added in pygame 1.9 so it is fairly > > recent. > > > > http://pygame.org/docs/ref/rect.html#pygame.Rect.copy > > https://docs.python.org/2/library/copy.html > > > > Thanks for any insights! > > /Victor >
