> - definitely:
> optimize the exiting map( None, ... ) special case
Have you measured how slow it is? On a classic Sun4 system (the
slowest machine around here :-) it takes about 8 usec per item
(i.e. 80 msec for a tuple of 10000). Sure, a few usec could probably
squeezed out, but it's not a case of "definitely must optimize" I'd
say...
> - and maybe:
> add a fast tuple( seq ) builtin function.
Yes, I've wanted this many times too. It's on the TODO list now!
BTW, claw@rahul.net wrote:
> Since LIST is the only mutable sequential type (a hindrance, IMHO),
> these conversions will permit easy manipulation of elements.
What exactly do you call a hindrance -- the fact that tuples and
strings are immutable, the fact that lists mutable, or the fact that
they share any functionality at all? I can assure you that much
thought went into this and once you get used to it, it's the only
way to go. (Oh, and the array module also defines a mutable sequence
type.)
--Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam <Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl>
<URL:http://www.cwi.nl/cwi/people/Guido.van.Rossum.html>