diff options
author | Michael Selik <mike@selik.org> | 2019-09-20 03:25:55 (GMT) |
---|---|---|
committer | Abhilash Raj <maxking@users.noreply.github.com> | 2019-09-20 03:25:55 (GMT) |
commit | 2702638eabe5f7b25f36d295f0ad78cb8d4eda05 (patch) | |
tree | 1231f4f3c8ca7667c98aafd33136dab024c980a0 /Doc/library | |
parent | 3368f3c6ae4140a0883e19350e672fd09c9db616 (diff) | |
download | cpython-2702638eabe5f7b25f36d295f0ad78cb8d4eda05.zip cpython-2702638eabe5f7b25f36d295f0ad78cb8d4eda05.tar.gz cpython-2702638eabe5f7b25f36d295f0ad78cb8d4eda05.tar.bz2 |
bpo-34002: Minor efficiency and clarity improvements in email package. (GH-7999)
* Check intersection of two sets explicitly
Comparing ``len(a) > ``len(a - b)`` is essentially looking for an
intersection between the two sets. If set ``b`` does not intersect ``a``
then ``len(a - b)`` will be equal to ``len(a)``. This logic is more
clearly expressed as ``a & b``.
* Change while/pop to a for-loop
Copying the list, then repeatedly popping the first element was
unnecessarily slow. I also cleaned up a couple other inefficiencies.
There's no need to unpack a tuple, then re-pack and append it. The list
can be created with the first element instead of empty. Secondly, the
``endswith`` method returns a bool, so there's no need for an if-
statement to set ``encoding`` to True or False.
* Use set.intersection to check for intersections
``a.intersection(b)`` method is more clear of purpose than ``not
a.isdisjoint(b)`` and avoids an unnecessary set construction that ``a &
set(b)`` performs.
* Use not isdisjoint instead of intersection
While it reads slightly worse, the isdisjoint method will stop when it
finds a counterexample and returns a bool, rather than looping over the
entire iterable and constructing a new set.
Diffstat (limited to 'Doc/library')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions