James Stroud wrote: > Steve Holden wrote: >> You'd be worth more if you'd used elif and omitted the continue >> statements, but for a first solution it's acceptable. > > Depends on what you are after. > > py> s = """ > ... for i in xrange(1,101): > ... if not i % 15: > ... continue > ... if not i % 5: > ... continue > ... if not i % 3: > ... continue > ... else: > ... pass > ... """ > py> t = timeit.Timer(stmt=s) > py> print "%.2f usec/pass" % (1000000 * t.timeit(number=100000)/100000) > 40.49 usec/pass > py> s = """ > ... for i in xrange(1,101): > ... if not i % 15: > ... pass > ... elif not i % 5: > ... pass > ... elif not i % 3: > ... pass > ... else: > ... pass > ... """ > py> t = timeit.Timer(stmt=s) > py> print "%.2f usec/pass" % (1000000 * t.timeit(number=100000)/100000) > 40.88 usec/pass >
To be strictly comparable you should have pass statements before the continue statements as well. Ignoring that, clearly it's well worth saving that extra 390 nanoseconds each time round the loop. Repeat after me "premature optimization is the root of all evil". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimization_(computer_science) regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Recent Ramblings http://holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
