Hi, On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 12:33:45PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Agreed, but there's more to doing that than just writing down the O() implied > by the current CPython implementation - it's up to Guido to decide which of > the constraints are part of the language definition, and which are > implementation accidents
I think that O-wise the current CPython situation should be documented as a "minimal requirement" for implementations of the language, with just one exception: the well-documented "don't rely on this" hack in 2.4 to make repeated 'str += str' amortized linear, for which the 2.3 quadratic behavior is considered compliant enough. I suppose that allowing implementations to provide better algorithmic complexities than required is fine, although I can think of some problems with that (e.g. nice and efficient user code that would perform horribly badly on CPython). Armin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com