[issue17629] Expose string width to Python

[Terry J. Reedy]

Terry J. Reedy added the comment:

ord(max(s)) == max(map(ord,s)) == ord(max(s, key=ord))
Using a*30000000 and mental counting, the first is clearly fastest (about 2 seconds) with a 3.4 build, which has the optimized string comparison patches from last October. The reduction to 3 categories takes almost no time.

I'm -1 without some real use case. For most testing, the data are constructed, so we already know the CPython internal width.

There is no comparison in importance between and len/__len__. bool(x) calls x.__len__ if no x.__bool__. strings and other builtin collection classes have no __bool__.

> .. cost little or nothing
Every addition has a real cost: for developers, write code, write test, test test, write doc, maintain; for users, more to learn and understand -- and forget. I doubt the value of the compute time saved would ever come close to the value of the human time expended. There is also a cost to adding something CPython-specific.

----------
nosy: +terry.reedy

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue17629>
_______________________________________