Ron Adam wrote:
> Alex Martelli wrote:
>> Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...
>>> Considering the number time I sort keys after getting them, It's the
>>> behavior I would prefer. Maybe a more dependable dict.sortedkeys()
>>> method would be nice. ;-)
>>
>> sorted(d) is guaranteed to do exactly the same thing as sorted(d.keys())
>> AND to be faster (would be pretty weird if it weren't faster...!).
>>
>> E.g., ...:
>>
>> helen:~ alex$ python -mtimeit -s'd=dict(enumerate("tarazoplay"))'
>> 'sorted(d.keys())'
>> 100000 loops, best of 3: 6.82 usec per loop
>>
>> helen:~ alex$ python -mtimeit -s'd=dict(enumerate("tarazoplay"))'
>> 'sorted(d)'
>> 100000 loops, best of 3: 5.98 usec per loop
>>
>>
>> Alex
>
>
> Yes, it did decrease it. And simplified it as well. ;)
>
>
> def psort11(s1, s2):
> d = dict(zip(s2, s1))
> assert len(d) == len(s1)
> sorted(d)
> s1[:] = d.values()
>
This probably should be:
def psort11(s1, s2):
d = dict(zip(s2,s1))
assert len(d) == len(s1)
s1[:] = list(d[v] for v in sorted(d))
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
