Hi Fred! > Regarding changing LOAD_CONST 0 to LOAD_NONE, yes. What's more > interesting are the changes of LOAD_GLOBAL 'None' to one of LOAD_CONST > 0 or LOAD_NONE. That could be changed to use LOAD_CONST 0 *now*, > without adding a new bytecode, and we could get a better idea of how > much performance it actually buys us in practice, since we get rid of > two dict lookups (globals & builtins). It's clear now.. thanks! > That doesn't address the deprecation cycle, but it would be nice to > see what the change would buy us. I'm going to work on it, and come back with some results. -- Gustavo Niemeyer [ 2AAC 7928 0FBF 0299 5EB5 60E2 2253 B29A 6664 3A0C ]
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