Equivalent of Perl chomp?

[Mark McEahern]

Nicholas FitzRoy-Dale wrote:
> I think there are two issues that Tim is referring to:
> 	1) time.time() is too low-resolution to accurately measure a single
> event, and
> 	2) When you run the program, you must take into account a "cold"
> swap space, meaning that the first run of the program will be slower than
> subsequent runs.
>
> To avoid these things, it's best to run your test multiple times:
>
> startTime=time.time()
> for count in xrange (100000):
> 	testString.endswith('a')
> print time.time()-startTime
>
> Also run your program multiple times. To be thorough, run your program
> multiple times, swap the order of the tests, and then run the new, swapped
> program multiple times.

Thanks for the suggestions.  I separated the two into separate files
(sliceit.py is shown below for what it's worth).  Here's what I get now:

	$ sliceit.py
	<function sliceIt at 0x100f9420> : 0.46 seconds.

	$ endswith.py
	<function endsWith at 0x100f93f0> : 0.60 seconds.

This is after running each repeatedly in various orders.

Cheers,

// mark

#! /usr/bin/env python
# sliceit.py

import time

def getString(n):
    s = "s" * n
    s = s + '\n'
    return s

def endsWith(s):
    s.endswith('\n')

def sliceIt(s):
    s[-1:] == '\n'

def timeIt(func):
    n = 1000
    s = getString(n)
    timeIn = time.time()
    for x in xrange(100000):
        func(s)
    timeOut = time.time()
    print "%s : %1.2f seconds." % (func, (timeOut - timeIn))

timeIt(sliceIt)