utils/data: Use list comprehension for uniq_stable() #2849
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
The documentation to the function probably ought to be changed too... |
|
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 09:57:24AM -0800, Jason Grout wrote:
Thanks. Fix pushed. This also lifts the “valid dictionary keys” (i.e. immutable) |
|
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:38:25PM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote:
Oops, no it doesn't ;) |
This should be faster than and explicit for loop. Also, a set makes more sense than a dict if we only care about values. After these changes, the resulting code is the same as Dave Kirby's uniqify() suggestion on Peter Bengtsson's blog [1]. [1]: http://www.peterbe.com/plog/uniqifiers-benchmark
|
sensible, merging. |
minrk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 26, 2013
utils/data: Use list comprehension for uniq_stable() This should be faster than and explicit for loop. Also, a set makes more sense than a dict if we only care about values. After these changes, the resulting code is the same as Dave Kirby's uniqify() suggestion on Peter Bengtsson's blog [1]. [1]: http://www.peterbe.com/plog/uniqifiers-benchmark
minrk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2013
This should be faster than and explicit for loop. Also, a set makes more sense than a dict if we only care about values. After these changes, the resulting code is the same as Dave Kirby's uniqify() suggestion on Peter Bengtsson's blog [1]. [1]: http://www.peterbe.com/plog/uniqifiers-benchmark
mattvonrocketstein
pushed a commit
to mattvonrocketstein/ipython
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 3, 2014
utils/data: Use list comprehension for uniq_stable() This should be faster than and explicit for loop. Also, a set makes more sense than a dict if we only care about values. After these changes, the resulting code is the same as Dave Kirby's uniqify() suggestion on Peter Bengtsson's blog [1]. [1]: http://www.peterbe.com/plog/uniqifiers-benchmark
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This should be faster than and explicit for loop. Also, a set makes more
sense than a dict if we only care about values. After these changes, the
resulting code is the same as Dave Kirby's uniqify() suggestion on Peter
Bengtsson's blog 1.