Consider using
in PYL-R1714
Performance
Major
3 years ago
—
3 years old
Consider merging these comparisons with "in" to '0 not in (self.nbuf, n)'
332 self.cycle()
333 self.mbuf = 0
334 self.nbuf = 32
335 while self.nbuf != 0 and n != 0:336 self.mbuf ^= (buffer[i] & 0xff) << (32 - self.nbuf)
337 buffer[i] ^= (self.sbuf >> (32 - self.nbuf)) & 0xff
338 i += 1Consider merging these comparisons with "in" to '0 not in (self.nbuf, n)'
348 j: int
349 t: int
350 if self.nbuf != 0:
351 while self.nbuf != 0 and n != 0:352 buffer[i] ^= (self.sbuf >> (32 - self.nbuf)) & 0xff
353 self.mbuf ^= (buffer[i] & 0xff) << (32 - self.nbuf)
354 i += 1Consider merging these comparisons with "in" to '0 not in (self.nbuf, n)'
376 self.cycle()
377 self.mbuf = 0
378 self.nbuf = 32
379 while self.nbuf != 0 and n != 0:380 buffer[i] ^= (self.sbuf >> (32 - self.nbuf)) & 0xff
381 self.mbuf ^= (buffer[i] & 0xff) << (32 - self.nbuf)
382 i += 1Consider merging these comparisons with "in" to '0 not in (self.nbuf, n)'
304 j: int
305 t: int
306 if self.nbuf != 0:
307 while self.nbuf != 0 and n != 0:308 self.mbuf ^= (buffer[i] & 0xff) << (32 - self.nbuf)
309 buffer[i] ^= (self.sbuf >> (32 - self.nbuf)) & 0xff
310 i += 1
Description
To check if a variable is equal to one of many values, combine the values into a tuple and check if the variable is contained in it instead of checking for equality against each of the values.
This is faster, less verbose, and more readable.
Bad practice
if x == 1 or x == 2 or x == 3:
do_something()
Recommended
if x in (1, 2, 3):
do_something()