[M.-A. Lemburg] > ... > Hmm, this makes me wonder: perhaps we should start thinking > about phasing out varying length PyObjects in the interpreter... No chance, IMO: the memory savings is too great. > esp. the inability to subclass strings looks like a bummer for > future extensions of this particular type. Unicode doesn't have > this problem, BTW. OTOH, I know someone at Zope Corp who could testify with force about the memory burden of switching to Unicode strings -- if you've got gobs of 'em, it's much worse than a factor of 2 blowup. Moving to obmalloc.c should help that a lot (two malloc overheads per Unicode string, and obmalloc overheads are much lower). > Or we need to come up with a fairly nice way of making > subclassing varying length types a lot easier, e.g. by > adding a special pointer ob_ext to PyObject_VAR_HEAD > which then allows declaring type extensions in an malloced > buffer. > > Thoughts ? Not a one <wink>.
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