| 1 |
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:03:50 -0800 |
| 2 |
Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > well actually, for simple additions like that, string1 + string2, |
| 8 |
> > it is actually faster. |
| 9 |
> > But for multiple additions, %s is much better, faster. Also if the |
| 10 |
> > string is translated, then use %s regardless. That way the %s can |
| 11 |
> > be moved around for the translation. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> In general we prefer % for readability purposes, not because it is |
| 15 |
> faster. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> foo = "Bar" + foo + " " + baz + "," + goat |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> foo = "Bar %s %s, %s" % (foo, baz, goat) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I think this case could go either way, because even with %, |
| 22 |
> "NumberOf%s" is not much of an improvement. |
| 23 |
> The code is littered with the former though, and it makes it really |
| 24 |
> annoying to read ;) |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> -A |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Do I have to sick Brian Harring on you ;) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I said for simple string addition... string1 + string2 is faster and |
| 31 |
equally readable |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Your example goes into the "string %s %s, %s" example where the string |
| 34 |
substitution is actually faster. Plus it is a lot more readable. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |
Archives