Merged
Conversation
Closed
Contributor
Author
|
All checks passed locally. Had to modify a test to work around the non exposure of the |
Contributor
Author
|
For timing reference: |
Collaborator
|
I took a few shots at making a simpler version of this, but yours is undeniably faster. Thanks! |
Closed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue reference
#797
Changes
I was trying to create my own
ichunkedmethod and found this library and thought I might contribute. This new method implementation runs about 2x faster than the current implementation due to it not using any user created iterators (eg. classes with thenext()method).There should be no changes visible to the end user other than the speed difference unless the user is relying on the private class
_IChunk.This implementation uses a scoped variables within a wrapping method scope to modify the state of the generator on the fly.
I have tested and timed this method extensively using both calls to
next()and just looping. I have also tried modifying the state part way through iteration and I have not run across any issues.A simple timing test: