On 04/07/2015 06:35 PM, jonas.thornv...@gmail.com wrote:
Den tisdag 7 april 2015 kl. 21:27:20 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
On 4/7/2015 1:44 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
def to_base(number, base):
... digits = []
... while number > 0:
... digits.append(number % base)
... number //= base
... return digits or [0]
...
to_base(2932903594368438384328325832983294832483258958495845849584958458435439543858588435856958650865490,
429496729)
[27626525, 286159541, 134919277, 305018215, 329341598, 48181777,
79384857, 112868646, 221068759, 70871527, 416507001, 31]
About 15 microseconds.
% and probably // call divmod internally and toss one of the results.
Slightly faster (5.7 versus 6.1 microseconds on my machine) is
Not on my box.
$ python3 -m timeit -s "n = 1000000; x = 42" "n % x; n // x"
10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.105 usec per loop
$ python3 -m timeit -s "n = 1000000; x = 42" "divmod(n,x)"
10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.124 usec per loop
I get similar results, but the times switch over when n is large enough
to become a bignum.
--
Ben.
I am not sure you guys realised, that althoug the size of the factors to
muliply expands according to base^(exp+1) for each digitplace the number of
comparissons needed to reach the digit place (multiple of base^exp+1) is
constant with my approach/method.
Baloney.
But even if it were true, a search is slower than a divide.
--
DaveA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
