This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author pitrou
Recipients hynek, jcea, ncoghlan, neologix, pitrou, rosslagerwall, tarek
Date 2012-01-31.21:56:14
SpamBayes Score 3.61009e-06
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1328046829.20847.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <>
> I was a little worried about the performance impact, so I did some
> trivial benchmarks:
> - O(depth) fwalk() is actually a tiny bit faster than walk() (it may
> be because we don't do as much path lookup)
> - O(1) fwalk() is around 20% slower, on a pure-traversal benchmark (so
> in a realistic use case where we would actually do something with the
> values returned by fwalk() the difference shouldn't be that
> noticeable)

I think the O(depth) version is fine. The O(1) version is quite more
complicated, difficult to follow, and it seems less robust (it doesn't
use try/finally and therefore might leak fds if the generator isn't
exhausted before being destroyed).

On modern systems you have at least 1024 fds, so the restriction
shouldn't be a problem.
Date User Action Args
2012-01-31 21:56:14pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, jcea, ncoghlan, tarek, neologix, rosslagerwall, hynek
2012-01-31 21:56:14pitroulinkissue13734 messages
2012-01-31 21:56:14pitroucreate