On 27/09/2012 13:46, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
On 27.09.12 12:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Nevertheless, I think there is something here. The consequences are
nowhere
near as dramatic as jmf claims, but it does seem that replace() has
taken a
serious performance hit. Perhaps it is unavoidable, but perhaps not.
If anyone else can confirm similar results, I think this should be
raised as
a performance regression.
Yes, I confirm, it's a performance regression. It should be avoidable.
Almost any PEP393 performance regression can be avoided. At least for
such corner case. Just no one has yet optimized this case.
I have taken a liberty and raised this on the bug tracker quoting Steven
D'Aprano's original figures and your response above.
--
Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
