could sum be faster on lists

Question

This is somehow a follow-up to this question

So first, you\'ll notice that you cannot perform a sum on a list of strings to concatenate them, python tel

Answer 1

/* It's tempting to use PyNumber_InPlaceAdd instead of
           PyNumber_Add here, to avoid quadratic running time
           when doing 'sum(list_of_lists, [])'.  However, this
           would produce a change in behaviour: a snippet like
             empty = []
             sum([[x] for x in range(10)], empty)
           would change the value of empty. */
temp = PyNumber_Add(result, item);

Taken from Python's built-in source code https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Python/bltinmodule.c#L2146 Line:2342

Answer 2

FWIW, we can trick the interpreter into letting us use sum on strings by passing an appropriate custom class instance as the start arg to sum.

class Q(object):
    def __init__(self, data=''):
        self.data = str(data)

    def __str__(self):
        return self.data

    def __add__(self, other):
        return Q(self.data + str(other))

print(sum(['abc', 'def', 'ghi'], Q()))

output

abcdefghi

Of course, this is a rather silly thing to do. :)

Answer 3

We could try to make sum() smarter, but Alex Martelli and Guido van Rossum wanted to keep it focused on arithmetic summations.

FWIW, you should get reasonable performance with this simple code:

result = []
for seq in mylists:
    result += seq

For your other question, "why can't sum use this accumulative approach when available?", see this comment for builtin_sum() in Python/bltinmodule.c:

    /* It's tempting to use PyNumber_InPlaceAdd instead of
       PyNumber_Add here, to avoid quadratic running time
       when doing 'sum(list_of_lists, [])'.  However, this
       would produce a change in behaviour: a snippet like

         empty = []
         sum([[x] for x in range(10)], empty)

       would change the value of empty. */