On Sat, Jul 20, 2002, Tim Peters wrote:
>> If it weren't for the ~sort column, I'd seriously suggest replacing the
> samplesort with this. 2*N extra bytes isn't as bad as it might sound, given
> that, in the absence of massive object duplication, each list element
> consumes at least 12 bytes (type pointer, refcount and value) + 4 bytes for
> the list pointer. Add 'em all up and that's a 13% worst-case temp memory
> overhead.
Any reason the list object can't grow a .stablesort() method?
--
Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
Project Vote Smart: http://www.vote-smart.org/
