From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Artur Malabarba Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What to do for faster `remove-duplicates'? Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 22:22:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87383atb2p.fsf@gmail.com> <873839ltoa.fsf@gmail.com> <87bnhxeh4j.fsf@gmail.com> <87lhh1zgyn.fsf@gmail.com> <87fv79zel7.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113402e0ca7f74051570629d X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1430947329 22823 80.91.229.3 (6 May 2015 21:22:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 21:22:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel , Thierry Volpiatto To: Oleh Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 06 23:22:09 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Yq6lb-0007Q8-Le for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 23:22:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47111 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yq6lb-0001sQ-1e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 17:22:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43147) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yq6lX-0001s9-GF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 17:22:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yq6lW-0005CO-Ic for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 17:22:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]:36625) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yq6lW-0005C8-9t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 17:22:02 -0400 Original-Received: by lagv1 with SMTP id v1so16954789lag.3 for ; Wed, 06 May 2015 14:22:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=m8yd4NiNcpKTAK0D/0tytOsV4kNL/1K9woYRyNtNDSM=; b=ksHmm8Hl8wKZwRXRKRfPi6xKuloVQR0DTDfXXzmBzursw4Veax18qX2MZbJC8AuVOG 7S50H83ZftN4BHAH25VXp3TA6T8+pqaRtYWXpgidmHbUV8XXDDg4Lvnl4m8ygMVo1WHK NmtBp7aRNmotRfj5KMrzC+YmgyeuWbJfCQzjnkmHAgh8KGBVzxXDGybNuVJd6/pHLAZE 9bi9wnQAjv2d2SJ8zRFoAef5RwDU/j0yyrfmagMQ5qNaCCsSDjnRvNC3AELQHYU8Dq2A /7wz+Vn3teJtfkuO/w9Two7s1jiEwS9G2/1HZQVKtpi9NmKq6YpX3l72Xu4pCvTES/G8 KEMw== X-Received: by 10.112.29.180 with SMTP id l20mr484474lbh.95.1430947321509; Wed, 06 May 2015 14:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.25.150.1 with HTTP; Wed, 6 May 2015 14:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.25.150.1 with HTTP; Wed, 6 May 2015 14:22:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87fv79zel7.fsf@gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: IWD0hu7nAsVob4D2T5y0XxrvSO4 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c03::235 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:186305 Archived-At: --001a113402e0ca7f74051570629d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > You're right. I've pushed the corrected version. I tried testing with > benchmark-run and the same large collection. The time fluctuates too > much to judge which method is better. They're roughly equal, and the > intuition is that not using `nreverse` is better. If there were no notable speed differences, I'd say the nreverse version is shorter and easier to read. But I don't want to start bikeshedding, so feel free to disregard my opinion. --001a113402e0ca7f74051570629d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> You're right. I've pushed the corrected version= .=C2=A0 I tried testing with
> benchmark-run and the same large collection. The time fluctuates too > much to judge which method is better. They're roughly equal, and t= he
> intuition is that not using `nreverse` is better.

If there were no notable speed differences, I'd say the = nreverse version is shorter and easier to read. But I don't want to sta= rt bikeshedding, so feel free to disregard my opinion.

--001a113402e0ca7f74051570629d--