Re: Find and Replace Simplification
20.07.13 20:03, Joshua Landau написав(ла): Still, it seems to me that it should be optimizable for sensible builtin types such that .translate is significantly faster, as there's no theoretical extra work that .translate *has* to do that .replace does not, and .replace also has to rebuild the string a lot of times. You should analyze overall mapping and reorder items in right order (if it possible), i.e. '' should be replaced before '' in html.escape. This extra work is too large for most real input. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 21 July 2013 08:44, Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com wrote: 20.07.13 20:03, Joshua Landau написав(ла): Still, it seems to me that it should be optimizable for sensible builtin types such that .translate is significantly faster, as there's no theoretical extra work that .translate *has* to do that .replace does not, and .replace also has to rebuild the string a lot of times. You should analyze overall mapping and reorder items in right order (if it possible), i.e. '' should be replaced before '' in html.escape. This extra work is too large for most real input. I don't understand. What items are you reordering? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
21.07.13 14:29, Joshua Landau написав(ла):
On 21 July 2013 08:44, Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com wrote:
20.07.13 20:03, Joshua Landau написав(ла):
Still, it seems to me that it should be optimizable for sensible
builtin types such that .translate is significantly faster, as there's
no theoretical extra work that .translate *has* to do that .replace
does not, and .replace also has to rebuild the string a lot of times.
You should analyze overall mapping and reorder items in right order (if it
possible), i.e. '' should be replaced before '' in html.escape. This extra
work is too large for most real input.
I don't understand. What items are you reordering?
mapping.items(). We can implement s.translate({ord(''): 'lt;',
ord(''): 'amp;'}) as s.replace('', 'amp;').replace('', 'lt;'), but
not as s.replace('', 'lt;').replace('', 'amp;').
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 21 July 2013 13:28, Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com wrote:
21.07.13 14:29, Joshua Landau написав(ла):
On 21 July 2013 08:44, Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com wrote:
20.07.13 20:03, Joshua Landau написав(ла):
Still, it seems to me that it should be optimizable for sensible
builtin types such that .translate is significantly faster, as there's
no theoretical extra work that .translate *has* to do that .replace
does not, and .replace also has to rebuild the string a lot of times.
You should analyze overall mapping and reorder items in right order (if
it
possible), i.e. '' should be replaced before '' in html.escape. This
extra
work is too large for most real input.
I don't understand. What items are you reordering?
mapping.items(). We can implement s.translate({ord(''): 'lt;', ord(''):
'amp;'}) as s.replace('', 'amp;').replace('', 'lt;'), but not as
s.replace('', 'lt;').replace('', 'amp;').
I see -- that won't always be the case though, as there can be loops
aka ab - ba.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 19 July 2013 18:29, Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com wrote: 19.07.13 19:22, Steven D'Aprano написав(ла): I also expect that the string replace() method will be second fastest, and re.sub will be the slowest, by a very long way. The string replace() method is fastest (at least in Python 3.3+). See implementation of html.escape() etc. def escape(s, quote=True): if quote: return s.translate(_escape_map_full) return s.translate(_escape_map) I fail to see how this supports the assertion that str.replace() is faster. However, some quick timing shows that translate has a very high penalty for missing characters and is a tad slower any way. Really, though, there should be no reason for .translate() to be slower than replace -- at worst it should just be reduce(lambda s, ab: s.replace(*ab), mapping.items()¹, original_str) and end up the *same* speed as iterated replace. But the fact that it doesn't have to re-build the string every replace means that theoretically it should be a lot faster. ¹ I realise this won't actually work for several reasons, and doesn't support things like passing in lists as mappings, but you could trivially support the important builtin types² and fall back to the original for others, where the pure-python __getitem__ is going to be the slowest part anyway. ² List, tuple, dict, str, bytes -- so basically just mappings and ordered iterables -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
19.07.13 21:08, Skip Montanaro написав(ла): Serhiy The string replace() method is fastest (at least in Python 3.3+). See Serhiy implementation of html.escape() etc. I trust everybody knows by now that when you want to use regular expressions you should shell out to Perl for the best performance. :-) If you want to use regular expressions Python is not the best choice. But if you want to use Python regular expressions sometimes are the best choice. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
20.07.13 14:16, Joshua Landau написав(ла):
On 19 July 2013 18:29, Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com wrote:
The string replace() method is fastest (at least in Python 3.3+). See
implementation of html.escape() etc.
def escape(s, quote=True):
if quote:
return s.translate(_escape_map_full)
return s.translate(_escape_map)
I fail to see how this supports the assertion that str.replace() is
faster.
And now look at Python 3.4 sources.
However, some quick timing shows that translate has a very
high penalty for missing characters and is a tad slower any way.
Really, though, there should be no reason for .translate() to be
slower than replace -- at worst it should just be reduce(lambda s,
ab: s.replace(*ab), mapping.items()¹, original_str) and end up the
*same* speed as iterated replace.
It doesn't work such way. Consider
'ab'.translate({ord('a'):'b',ord('b'):'a'}).
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 07/20/2013 07:16 AM, Joshua Landau wrote: On 19 July 2013 18:29, Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com wrote: 19.07.13 19:22, Steven D'Aprano написав(ла): I also expect that the string replace() method will be second fastest, and re.sub will be the slowest, by a very long way. The string replace() method is fastest (at least in Python 3.3+). See implementation of html.escape() etc. def escape(s, quote=True): if quote: return s.translate(_escape_map_full) return s.translate(_escape_map) I fail to see how this supports the assertion that str.replace() is faster. However, some quick timing shows that translate has a very high penalty for missing characters and is a tad slower any way. Really, though, there should be no reason for .translate() to be slower than replace -- at worst it should just be reduce(lambda s, ab: s.replace(*ab), mapping.items()¹, original_str) and end up the *same* speed as iterated replace. But the fact that it doesn't have to re-build the string every replace means that theoretically it should be a lot faster. ¹ I realise this won't actually work for several reasons, and doesn't support things like passing in lists as mappings, but you could trivially support the important builtin types² and fall back to the original for others, where the pure-python __getitem__ is going to be the slowest part anyway. ² List, tuple, dict, str, bytes -- so basically just mappings and ordered iterables Thanks Joshua Landau! str.replace() does appear to be best, so that is the suggestion that I will implement. Mahalo, DCJ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 07/20/2013 07:48 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: 19.07.13 21:08, Skip Montanaro написав(ла): Serhiy The string replace() method is fastest (at least in Python 3.3+). See Serhiy implementation of html.escape() etc. I trust everybody knows by now that when you want to use regular expressions you should shell out to Perl for the best performance. :-) If you want to use regular expressions Python is not the best choice. But if you want to use Python regular expressions sometimes are the best choice. That is an interesting concept. (^u^) Mahalo, DCJ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 20 July 2013 12:57, Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com wrote:
20.07.13 14:16, Joshua Landau написав(ла):
On 19 July 2013 18:29, Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com wrote:
The string replace() method is fastest (at least in Python 3.3+). See
implementation of html.escape() etc.
def escape(s, quote=True):
if quote:
return s.translate(_escape_map_full)
return s.translate(_escape_map)
I fail to see how this supports the assertion that str.replace() is
faster.
And now look at Python 3.4 sources.
I'll just trust you ;).
However, some quick timing shows that translate has a very
high penalty for missing characters and is a tad slower any way.
Really, though, there should be no reason for .translate() to be
slower than replace -- at worst it should just be reduce(lambda s,
ab: s.replace(*ab), mapping.items()¹, original_str) and end up the
*same* speed as iterated replace.
It doesn't work such way. Consider
'ab'.translate({ord('a'):'b',ord('b'):'a'}).
*sad*
Still, it seems to me that it should be optimizable for sensible
builtin types such that .translate is significantly faster, as there's
no theoretical extra work that .translate *has* to do that .replace
does not, and .replace also has to rebuild the string a lot of times.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 07/20/2013 01:03 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
On 20 July 2013 12:57, Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com wrote:
20.07.13 14:16, Joshua Landau написав(ла):
snip
However, some quick timing shows that translate has a very
high penalty for missing characters and is a tad slower any way.
Really, though, there should be no reason for .translate() to be
slower than replace -- at worst it should just be reduce(lambda s,
ab: s.replace(*ab), mapping.items()¹, original_str) and end up the
*same* speed as iterated replace.
It doesn't work such way. Consider
'ab'.translate({ord('a'):'b',ord('b'):'a'}).
*sad*
Still, it seems to me that it should be optimizable for sensible
builtin types such that .translate is significantly faster, as there's
no theoretical extra work that .translate *has* to do that .replace
does not, and .replace also has to rebuild the string a lot of times.
translate is going to be faster (than replace) for Unicode if it has a
large table. For example, to translate from ASCII to EBCDIC, where
every character in the string is replaced by a new one. I have no idea
what the cutoff is. But of course, for a case like ASCII to EBCDIC, it
would be very tricky to do it with replaces, probably taking much more
than the expected 96 passes.
translate for byte strings is undoubtedly tons faster. For byte
strings, the translation table is 256 bytes, and the inner loop is a
simple lookup. But for Unicode, the table is a dict (or something very
like it, I looked at the C code, not the Python code).
So for every character in the input string, it does a dict-type lookup,
before it can even decide if the character is going to change.
Just for reference, the two files I was looking at were:
objects/unicodeobject.c
objects/bytesobject.c
Extracted from the bz2 downloaded from the page:
http://hg.python.org/cpython
--
DaveA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 20 July 2013 19:04, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote: On 07/20/2013 01:03 PM, Joshua Landau wrote: Still, it seems to me that it should be optimizable for sensible builtin types such that .translate is significantly faster, as there's no theoretical extra work that .translate *has* to do that .replace does not, and .replace also has to rebuild the string a lot of times. translate is going to be faster (than replace) for Unicode if it has a large table. For example, to translate from ASCII to EBCDIC, where every character in the string is replaced by a new one. I have no idea what the cutoff is. But of course, for a case like ASCII to EBCDIC, it would be very tricky to do it with replaces, probably taking much more than the expected 96 passes. My timings showed that for .upper(), doing the full 26 passes a - A, it was *way* slower to use .translate than .replace, unless you used a list or equiv. with much faster lookup. Even then, it was slower to use .translate. I agree that for large tables it's obviously going to swing the other way, but by the time you're running .replace 26 times you wouldn't (at least I wouldn't) expect it still to be screamingly faster than .translate. translate for byte strings is undoubtedly tons faster. For byte strings, the translation table is 256 bytes, and the inner loop is a simple lookup. For my above test, .translate is about 10x faster than iterated .replace. But for Unicode, the table is a dict (or something very like it, I looked at the C code, not the Python code). So for every character in the input string, it does a dict-type lookup, before it can even decide if the character is going to change. The problem can be solved, I'd imagine, for builtin types. Just build an internal representation upon calling .translate that's faster. It's especially easy in the list case -- just build a C array¹ at the start mapping int - int and then have really fast C mapping speeds. For dictionaries, you can do the same thing -- you just have to make sure you're not breaking any memory barriers. ¹ I don't do C or other low level languages, so my knowledge in this area is embarrassingly bad Just for reference, the two files I was looking at were: objects/unicodeobject.c objects/bytesobject.c Extracted from the bz2 downloaded from the page: http://hg.python.org/cpython I didn't look at bytes first time, I might take a look later. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 20 July 2013 19:37, Joshua Landau jos...@landau.ws wrote: mapping int - int Well, on second thought it's not quite this unless it's a 1:1 mapping. Point remains valid, though, I think. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 07/20/2013 02:37 PM, Joshua Landau wrote: On 20 July 2013 19:04, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote: On 07/20/2013 01:03 PM, Joshua Landau wrote: Still, it seems to me that it should be optimizable for sensible builtin types such that .translate is significantly faster, as there's no theoretical extra work that .translate *has* to do that .replace does not, and .replace also has to rebuild the string a lot of times. translate is going to be faster (than replace) for Unicode if it has a large table. For example, to translate from ASCII to EBCDIC, where every character in the string is replaced by a new one. I have no idea what the cutoff is. But of course, for a case like ASCII to EBCDIC, it would be very tricky to do it with replaces, probably taking much more than the expected 96 passes. My timings showed that for .upper(), doing the full 26 passes a - A, it was *way* slower to use .translate than .replace, unless you used a list or equiv. with much faster lookup. Even then, it was slower to use .translate. I agree that for large tables it's obviously going to swing the other way, but by the time you're running .replace 26 times you wouldn't (at least I wouldn't) expect it still to be screamingly faster than .translate. translate for byte strings is undoubtedly tons faster. For byte strings, the translation table is 256 bytes, and the inner loop is a simple lookup. For my above test, .translate is about 10x faster than iterated .replace. But for Unicode, the table is a dict (or something very like it, I looked at the C code, not the Python code). So for every character in the input string, it does a dict-type lookup, before it can even decide if the character is going to change. The problem can be solved, I'd imagine, for builtin types. Just build an internal representation upon calling .translate that's faster. It's especially easy in the list case What list case? list doesn't have a replace() method or translate() method. -- just build a C array¹ at the start mapping int - int and then have really fast C mapping speeds. As long as you can afford to have a list with a billion or so entries in it. We are talking about strings and version 3.3, aren't we? Of course, one could always examine the mapping object (table) and see what the max value was, and only build a C array if it was smaller than say 50,000. For dictionaries, you can do the same thing -- you just have to make sure you're not breaking any memory barriers. ¹ I don't do C or other low level languages, so my knowledge in this area is embarrassingly bad Just for reference, the two files I was looking at were: objects/unicodeobject.c objects/bytesobject.c Extracted from the bz2 downloaded from the page: http://hg.python.org/cpython I didn't look at bytes first time, I might take a look later. -- DaveA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 20 July 2013 22:56, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote: On 07/20/2013 02:37 PM, Joshua Landau wrote: The problem can be solved, I'd imagine, for builtin types. Just build an internal representation upon calling .translate that's faster. It's especially easy in the list case What list case? list doesn't have a replace() method or translate() method. I mean some_str.translate(some_list). -- just build a C array¹ at the start mapping int - int and then have really fast C mapping speeds. As long as you can afford to have a list with a billion or so entries in it. We are talking about strings and version 3.3, aren't we? Of course, one could always examine the mapping object (table) and see what the max value was, and only build a C array if it was smaller than say 50,000. When talking about some_str.translate(some_list), this doesn't apply very much -- they've already gotten a much bigger Python list. In the dict case² I don't actually want to jump to the conclusion that one should do array-based mappings because I can see the obvious downsides and it's obviously not good to have 100 cases in there, *but* I still think that there's a solution. Here are some ideas: · Latin and ASCII can obviously be done with a C array, and I imagine that covers at least a fair portion of use-cases. · If you only have a few characters in the mapping (so sys.getsizeof is small) then it'll be a lot faster to just iterate through a C list instead of checking the dict. · Other cases are: · Full-character-set or equiv. mappings, which are already faster than .replace(). Those should really be re-made into lists so that the list optimisation can take place, and lists are much faster even in versions without these hypothetical optimizations, too. · Custom objects. There's nothing we can do here. I realise that this is a lot more code, so it's not something I'm going to try to force. However, I think it's useful if it stops people using .replace in a loop ;). ² some_str.translate(some_dict) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Find and Replace Simplification
I have some code that I want to simplify. I know that a for-loop would
work well, but can I make re.sub perform all of the below tasks at once,
or can I write this in a way that is more efficient than using a for-loop?
DATA = re.sub(',', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub('\'', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub('(', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub(')', '', 'DATA')
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On Friday, July 19, 2013 7:22:48 AM UTC-6, Devyn Collier Johnson wrote:
I have some code that I want to simplify. I know that a for-loop would
work well, but can I make re.sub perform all of the below tasks at once,
or can I write this in a way that is more efficient than using a for-loop?
DATA = re.sub(',', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub('\'', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub('(', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub(')', '', 'DATA')
Try DATA = re.sub(r'[(,\\)]', '', 'DATA')
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
In mailman.4865.1374240179.3114.python-l...@python.org Devyn Collier Johnson
devyncjohn...@gmail.com writes:
I have some code that I want to simplify. I know that a for-loop would
work well, but can I make re.sub perform all of the below tasks at once,
or can I write this in a way that is more efficient than using a for-loop?
DATA = re.sub(',', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub('\'', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub('(', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub(')', '', 'DATA')
If your actual use-case is this simple, you might want to use one of the
built-in string functions such as strip() or translate().
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gor...@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, The Gashlycrumb Tinies
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:22:48 -0400, Devyn Collier Johnson wrote:
I have some code that I want to simplify. I know that a for-loop would
work well, but can I make re.sub perform all of the below tasks at once,
or can I write this in a way that is more efficient than using a
for-loop?
DATA = re.sub(',', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub('\'', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub('(', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub(')', '', 'DATA')
I don't think you intended to put DATA in quotes on the right hand side.
That makes it literally the string D A T A, so all those replacements are
no-ops, and you could simplify it to:
DATA = 'DATA'
But that's probably not what you wanted.
My prediction is that this will be by far the most efficient way to do
what you are trying to do:
py DATA = Hello, 'World'()
py DATA.translate(dict.fromkeys(ord(c) for c in ,'()))
'Hello World'
That's in Python 3 -- in Python 2, using translate will still probably be
the fastest, but you'll need to call it like this:
import string
DATA.translate(string.maketrans(, ), ,'())
I also expect that the string replace() method will be second fastest,
and re.sub will be the slowest, by a very long way.
As a general rule, you should avoiding using regexes unless the text you
are searching for actually contains a regular expression of some kind. If
it's merely a literal character or substring, standard string methods
will probably be faster.
Oh, and a tip for you:
- don't escape quotes unless you don't need to, use the other quote.
s = '\'' # No, don't do this!
s = ' # Better!
and vice versa.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
19.07.13 19:22, Steven D'Aprano написав(ла): I also expect that the string replace() method will be second fastest, and re.sub will be the slowest, by a very long way. The string replace() method is fastest (at least in Python 3.3+). See implementation of html.escape() etc. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
Serhiy The string replace() method is fastest (at least in Python 3.3+). See Serhiy implementation of html.escape() etc. I trust everybody knows by now that when you want to use regular expressions you should shell out to Perl for the best performance. :-) Skip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 07/19/2013 12:22 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:22:48 -0400, Devyn Collier Johnson wrote:
I have some code that I want to simplify. I know that a for-loop would
work well, but can I make re.sub perform all of the below tasks at once,
or can I write this in a way that is more efficient than using a
for-loop?
DATA = re.sub(',', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub('\'', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub('(', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub(')', '', 'DATA')
I don't think you intended to put DATA in quotes on the right hand side.
That makes it literally the string D A T A, so all those replacements are
no-ops, and you could simplify it to:
DATA = 'DATA'
But that's probably not what you wanted.
My prediction is that this will be by far the most efficient way to do
what you are trying to do:
py DATA = Hello, 'World'()
py DATA.translate(dict.fromkeys(ord(c) for c in ,'()))
'Hello World'
That's in Python 3 -- in Python 2, using translate will still probably be
the fastest, but you'll need to call it like this:
import string
DATA.translate(string.maketrans(, ), ,'())
I also expect that the string replace() method will be second fastest,
and re.sub will be the slowest, by a very long way.
As a general rule, you should avoiding using regexes unless the text you
are searching for actually contains a regular expression of some kind. If
it's merely a literal character or substring, standard string methods
will probably be faster.
Oh, and a tip for you:
- don't escape quotes unless you don't need to, use the other quote.
s = '\'' # No, don't do this!
s = ' # Better!
and vice versa.
Thanks for finding that error; DATA should not be in quotes. I cannot
believe I missed that. Good eye Steven!
Using the replace command is a brilliant idea; I will implement that
where ever I can. I am wanting to perform all of the replaces at once.
Is that possible?
Mahalo,
DCJ
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Find and Replace Simplification
On 07/19/2013 05:44 PM, Devyn Collier Johnson wrote:
On 07/19/2013 12:22 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:22:48 -0400, Devyn Collier Johnson wrote:
I have some code that I want to simplify. I know that a for-loop would
work well, but can I make re.sub perform all of the below tasks at once,
or can I write this in a way that is more efficient than using a
for-loop?
DATA = re.sub(',', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub('\'', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub('(', '', 'DATA')
DATA = re.sub(')', '', 'DATA')
I don't think you intended to put DATA in quotes on the right hand side.
That makes it literally the string D A T A, so all those replacements are
no-ops, and you could simplify it to:
DATA = 'DATA'
But that's probably not what you wanted.
My prediction is that this will be by far the most efficient way to do
what you are trying to do:
py DATA = Hello, 'World'()
py DATA.translate(dict.fromkeys(ord(c) for c in ,'()))
'Hello World'
That's in Python 3 -- in Python 2, using translate will still probably be
the fastest, but you'll need to call it like this:
import string
DATA.translate(string.maketrans(, ), ,'())
I also expect that the string replace() method will be second fastest,
and re.sub will be the slowest, by a very long way.
As a general rule, you should avoiding using regexes unless the text you
are searching for actually contains a regular expression of some kind. If
it's merely a literal character or substring, standard string methods
will probably be faster.
Oh, and a tip for you:
- don't escape quotes unless you don't need to, use the other quote.
s = '\'' # No, don't do this!
s = ' # Better!
and vice versa.
Thanks for finding that error; DATA should not be in quotes. I cannot
believe I missed that. Good eye Steven!
Using the replace command is a brilliant idea; I will implement that
where ever I can. I am wanting to perform all of the replaces at once.
Is that possible?
Read what you're quoting from. The translate() method does just that.
And maketrans() is the way to build a translate table.
On an Intel processor, the xlat instruction does a translate for one
character, and adding a REP in front of it does it for an entire buffer.
No idea if Python takes advantage of that, however.
--
DaveA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
