Allow me to point out that there's such a thing as dict.copy(). It's pointless to import a module to call a method that you know is made publicly available already, and just as pointless to make people import.
On Jun 3, 2017 16:23, "Victor Blomqvist" <v...@viblo.se> wrote: > 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 >> > >
