"M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: > > ... > > Having Python itself written in C++ we could do *much* better. Agree. > ... > > The slot design has serious drawbacks and should be replaced by > something more reliable, preferably C++ methods. That way, we'll > get some more "type" safety into Python and its extensions. I agree that the slot stuff is broken but my solution would be to junk it and use the same mechanism for looking up "type methods" and "instance methods". I can think of two ways to make that perform reasonably: one is method caching and the other is by building interface objects where methods are invoked by index -- basically vtables. But if the same mechanism is going to accelerate Python and C types alike then it can't really use C++ vtables because how do you generate a vtable at runtime for a new Python class? (you could also think of it as a COM interface object) > So I guess it's time for some PEPs now... the upgrade path > PEP and the fluffy clouds PEP. Good timing. I just finished the first draft of the upgrade path PEP. -- Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. - http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4