no heart feelings. i was just throwing ideas. no time to testing it.
On Feb 9, 3:55 pm, "Tekkaman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks everybody!Azrael: your suggestions involve python-level membership > testing and > dummy list construction just like my uniter3 example, so I'm afraid > they would not go any faster. There's no built-in sequence flattening > function that I know of btw. > bearophile: your implementation is very similar to my uniter2 > (subsequent set unions) but without the additional lambda def > overhead, and in fact it goes faster. Not faster than uniter though. > Peter: your solution is the fastest, removing the explicit for loop > resulted in a 30% speed gain. Looks like using set() is a must. > > -- Simone -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
