Peter> Bjoern Schliessmann wrote: >> Wouldn't be "if k in d.keys()" be the exact replacement?
Peter> No, 'k in d' is equivalent to 'd.has_key(k)', only with less Peter> (constant) overhead for the function call. 'k in d.keys()' on the Peter> other hand creates a list of keys which is then searched linearly Peter> -- about the worst thing you can do about both speed and memory Peter> footprint. I will admit that way back when (maybe 8 yrs ago) I actually did this in a piece of frequently executed code that's been stable for a looong time. I have no idea why I might have written it that way. Brain fart I suppose. I only noticed my mistake a couple months ago during a trip into the containing function for some other stuff. Man, was I embarrassed... Skip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list