Hi Ben,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 06:50:28PM -0500, Ben Cartwright wrote:
It seems to me that str.count is awfully slow. Is there some reason
for this?
stringobject.c could do with a good clean-up. It contains very similar
algorithms multiple times, in slightly different styles and with
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On 2/28/06, Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
My personal goal in life right now is to stay as
far away from C++ as I can get.
so what C compiler are you using ?
Gcc, mostly. I don't mind if it's capable of
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Recent versions of GCC appear
to be implementing C98 by default -- at least I didn't get complaints
about declarations placed after non-declarations in the same block
from any of the buildbot hosts...
As long as it doesn't complain when I *do* put all
my declarations
From comp.lang.python:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that str.count is awfully slow. Is there some reason
for this?
Evidence:
str.count time test
import string
import time
import array
s = string.printable * int(1e5) # 10**7 character string
a =
Zitat von Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
it's about time that someone sat down and merged the string and unicode
implementations into a single stringlib code base (see the SRE sources for
an efficient way to do this in plain C). [1]
[...]
1) anyone want me to start working on this ?
This
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it's about time that someone sat down and merged the string and unicode
implementations into a single stringlib code base (see the SRE sources for
an efficient way to do this in plain C). [1]
[...]
1) anyone want me to start working on this ?
This would be a
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
moving to (basic) C++ might also be a good idea (in 3.0, perhaps). is any-
one still stuck with pure C89 these days ?
Some of us actually *prefer* working with plain C
when we have a choice, and don't consider ourselves
stuck with it.
My personal goal in life right now
Greg Ewing wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
moving to (basic) C++ might also be a good idea (in 3.0, perhaps). is any-
one still stuck with pure C89 these days ?
Some of us actually *prefer* working with plain C
when we have a choice, and don't consider ourselves
stuck with it.
perhaps,
