On Jun 9, 8:20 am, samwyse <samw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 9, 12:30 am, Emile van Sebille <em...@fenx.com> wrote: > > > On 6/8/2009 8:43 PM Ben Finney said... > > > The fact that literal set syntax is a relative newcomer is the primary > > > reason for that, I'd wager. > > > Well, no. It really is more, "that's odd... why use set?" > > Until I ran some timing tests this morning, I'd have said that sets > could determine membership faster than a list, but that's apparently > not true,
See my reply to that post. I believe your tests were flawed. > assuming that the list has less than 8K members. Above 16K > members, sets are much faster than lists. I'm not sure where the > break is, or even why there's a break. The break comes from the compiler, not the objects themselves. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
