Victor Stinner wrote:
Hum, copy-paste failure, I wrote numbers in the wrong order, it's:
(test: Python 3.2 => Python 3.3)
"A".join(["Bob"]*100)): 0.92 => 2.11
("C"+"AB"*300).rfind("CA"): 0.57 => 1.03
("A" + ("Z"*128*1024)).replace("A", "BB", 1): 0.25 => 0.50
I improved str.replace(): it's now 5 times faster instead of 2 times slower
for this specific benchmark :-) (or 10 times faster in Python 3.3 before/after
my patch)
Talking about str.replace, I was surprised to see this behaviour in 3.2:
>>> s = 'spam'
>>> t = s.replace('a', 'a')
>>> s is t
False
Given that strings are immutable, would it not be an obvious
optimization for replace to return the source string unchanged if the
old and new substrings are equal, and avoid making a potentially
expensive copy?
I note that if count is zero, the source string is returned unchanged:
>>> t = s.replace('a', 'b', 0)
>>> t is s
True
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
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
