Timeline for Generating Julia set
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 24, 2018 at 18:01 | comment | added | Reinderien | @Georgy I removed my asterisk feedback from the answer. That said, this is a style decision, and one I disagree with. It should be left to the caller to determine whether adding explicit kwarg names makes the call more clear, or whether the parameters being passed are obvious and the code can be made more terse. | |
| Dec 24, 2018 at 17:58 | history | edited | Reinderien | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 388 characters in body
|
| Dec 24, 2018 at 16:35 | comment | added | Georgy | About using the asterisk. I think it is a good practice to force a user to use keyword arguments. When you said about arbitrary arguments, I think, you referred to another thing which is not my case. | |
| Dec 24, 2018 at 16:22 | comment | added | Georgy |
I did some timings, and it looks like itertools.repeat won't be of any help due to breaking out of a loop when the mask becomes empty, so it won't reach big ints where the difference will be significant. I'm gonna change it to range.
|
|
| Dec 24, 2018 at 15:44 | comment | added | Reinderien | That's pretty cool; I didn't know that. I'd still suggest that it's premature optimization and highly unlikely to be a bottleneck of any significance. | |
| Dec 24, 2018 at 15:37 | comment | added | Azat Ibrakov |
itertools.repeat(None, iterations_count) is much faster for big ints since it doesn't require creating redundant objects, you can look at this answer
|
|
| Dec 24, 2018 at 14:58 | history | answered | Reinderien | CC BY-SA 4.0 |